Tinks Double Head Shot Theory From SSID

[Dean Hagerman]

Those of you open-minded about a possible explanation for Kennedy's head movements should watch the video at the link below.

elastic recoil vid

Here is my discussion of the head movement in chapter 16b at patspeer.com

As discussed, the Zapruder film makes it clear that Kennedy's head goes back and to the left after the fatal head shot. Conspiracy theorists have long held that this means the shot came from the front. Single-assassin theorists, on the other hand, have pointed out that Kennedy's head initially goes forward, and have used supposedly scientific explanations, the "jet effect" and the "neuro-muscular response," to try and explain Kennedy's subsequent backwards movement. When I started suspecting that the head shot hit Kennedy at the supposed exit, one of the first things I did was slap myself at this exit location from behind, to see if this impact would re-create Kennedy's movements. To my surprise, it did.

I subsequently learned that there is a certain elastic recoil in muscle tissue. You stretch it out far enough, and it snaps right back on its own. Some runners learn to use this to their advantage. This led me to believe that Kennedy was hit towards the top of his head, his head was driven down, his chin hit his chest and his head sprang back up from the recoil of his neck muscles.

In July 2007, researcher Gil Jesus alerted the Education Forum to a number of videos he found online, depicting head shots. One of these was news footage of a hostage-taker getting killed by a sniper. The shot came in from the man's right. The man's head turned to his left, traveling with the bullet. Then snapped back to his right, facing the sky as he fell to the ground. Not enough fluid was ejected from his head to create the "jet effect." His body failed to stiffen as in a neuro-muscular response. This video can be viewed here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OKTaYzDrnqk

Kennedy contorts in a similar manner, only more vertically. This is consistent with his getting hit more towards the top of his head, at the supposed exit.

Should one continue to doubt such a shot occurred, and insist that the “back-and-to-the-left” movement of Kennedy’s skull could only have come from the front, I suggest a simple test. I’ve done it way too many times. Lean forward 30 degrees…tilt your head 25 degrees to your left… and SLAP the top of your skull above your ear downwards, and see what happens. NO. I'M KIDDING. Don’t do this!!! It hurts a bit. Take my word for it, instead,--your head will bounce right up and throw your body backwards, exactly as Kennedy’s did in the frames after the fatal headshot. (By the way, I'm not just making this up. This unique attribute of tangential hits is mentioned in the online paper Wound Ballistic Simulation by Jorma Jusilla, presented at the University of Helsinki: It states “A tangential hit also causes a torsion motion of the head which can cause serious injuries.” According to Funk and Wagnall’s, the word “torsion” means “The act of twisting.” I say that in case you might need to look it up. I did.)

In retrospect, the mystery over the cause of Kennedy’s back-and-to-the-left movement should have been solved a long time ago. All the debate over the “man behind the picket fence,” the “jet effect” and “neuro-muscular response” would have been unnecessary if someone used some common sense back in 1964. People knew the bullet broke up. People knew that bullets normally pierce a body without imparting enough energy into the body to throw it one way or the other. People knew that, on the other hand, a bullet striking tangentially, creating a gutter wound, and breaking up, could impart enough energy into someone to slap them one way or the other. People knew as well that the Zapruder film showed Kennedy being slapped back into his seat. The problem, one can only guess, is that the people knowing these things were not the same people.

The movements of Kennedy apparent in the Zapruder frames following the head shot, when taken in conjunction with the evidence previously discussed, including the fact that no bloody back spatter emanates from the back of Kennedy's head in the film, can therefore be taken as a clear indication the bullet striking Kennedy at frame 313 struck his skull at the supposed exit, most probably from behind.

Pat

That video was removed by Youtube, do you have it dowloaded?

Also I tried your "slap the head" method (dont worry im 30 years old, even though I feel like im 80 ) and to my suprise my head did just what you said it would do

However a slap to the back of your own head can not simulate the speed of a bullet, and while the bullet is much smaller then your hand I believe the force would have kept driving JFKs head forward, BUT he was then hit with a bullet fired from the front (Badgeman position) that drove him to the left rear.

Dean

PS I have viewed your videos on your website (I first viewed them a while ago I dont remember when, but just re-watched them yesterday) and enjoyed them alot.

Good job on those!

[Dean Hagerman]

Not only does Tink in SSID support his double head hit theory but also according to Cutler so did most of assassination researchers/students

[J. Raymond Carroll]

The movements of Kennedy apparent in the Zapruder frames following the head shot, when taken in conjunction with the evidence previously discussed, including the fact that no bloody back spatter emanates from the back of Kennedy's head in the film, can therefore be taken as a clear indication the bullet striking Kennedy at frame 313 struck his skull at the supposed exit, most probably from behind.

Greetings, Pat and Happy New Year: I am very interested in your theory that the Parkland doctors perception of the head wound was distorted, and I do intend to check that out further on your web site.

But I am puzzled by the above paragraph. You are saying that the explosion on the right side of JFK's head represents the IMPACT/ENTRY, which makes sense to me, but then you add the puzzler that this bullet was fired from BEHIND.

I just cannot see how a bullet from behind could enter on the right side of JFK's head, when the right side of JFK's head does not appear to be in the line of sight of a gunman firing from the TSBD (or the Dal-Tex).

However, I CAN see that this explosion on the right side of JFK's head is consistent with the entry of a shot from the right front, possibly involving some kind of explosive bullet.

[Pat Speer]

The movements of Kennedy apparent in the Zapruder frames following the head shot, when taken in conjunction with the evidence previously discussed, including the fact that no bloody back spatter emanates from the back of Kennedy's head in the film, can therefore be taken as a clear indication the bullet striking Kennedy at frame 313 struck his skull at the supposed exit, most probably from behind.

Greetings, Pat and Happy New Year: I am very interested in your theory that the Parkland doctors perception of the head wound was distorted, and I do intend to check that out further on your web site.

But I am puzzled by the above paragraph. You are saying that the explosion on the right side of JFK's head represents the IMPACT/ENTRY, which makes sense to me, but then you add the puzzler that this bullet was fired from BEHIND.

I just cannot see how a bullet from behind could enter on the right side of JFK's head, when the right side of JFK's head does not appear to be in the line of sight of a gunman firing from the TSBD (or the Dal-Tex).

However, I CAN see that this explosion on the right side of JFK's head is consistent with the entry of a shot from the right front, possibly involving some kind of explosive bullet.

Ray, when one positions a skull in the position of JFK's at 312, and then views it from the angle of the sniper's nest at 312, the right side of the head above the ear is readily visible. I spent some time on this a few years back with string and skulls. If an M/C bullet hit the skull at this location and from this angle, moreover, it would strike the skull almost on edge, and encounter far more resistance than a bullet merely striking the skull straight on. Such a bullet would basically explode. If this is what happened, one would expect fragments in the scalp at this location (the HSCA's David Davis reported that he thought there were fragments in the scalp at this location, but that he could not explain them). If this is what happened, furthermore, the largest fragments would be expected to be deflected forward. This, in turn, could explain why the fragment impact on the windshield was out of line with a trajectory traveling through the head from either of the proposed entrances on the back of the head. It could also explain why this fragment was covered with human skin. It could also explain the fragment hitting the curb near Tague, which was only slightly out of line with the head shot at 313.

The beveling on the Harper fragment also suggests a shot fired from behind.

Still, I found something recently that also supports the possibility the fatal shot came from the front. As a result, I remain open, if only slightly, to that possibility.

[Pat Speer]

Pat

That video was removed by Youtube, do you have it dowloaded?

Also I tried your "slap the head" method (dont worry im 30 years old, even though I feel like im 80 ) and to my suprise my head did just what you said it would do

However a slap to the back of your own head can not simulate the speed of a bullet, and while the bullet is much smaller then your hand I believe the force would have kept driving JFKs head forward, BUT he was then hit with a bullet fired from the front (Badgeman position) that drove him to the left rear.

Dean

PS I have viewed your videos on your website (I first viewed them a while ago I dont remember when, but just re-watched them yesterday) and enjoyed them alot.

Good job on those!

No, unfortunately, I didn't download the video of the hostage-taker's demise. I'll have to look around and see if I can find it elsewhere.

[J. Raymond Carroll]

When one positions a skull in the position of JFK's at 312, and then views it from the angle of the sniper's nest at 312, the right side of the head above the ear is readily visible. I spent some time on this a few years back with string and skulls.

A word of caution here.

THe Warren Commission reenactment of the the line of sight from the Sniper's Nest to JFK is a PHONY REENACTMENT, because it leaves out the SS follow-up car. The SS follow-up car and in particular the standing agents plus Dave Powers who was also standing constituted an OBSTACLE in the line of sight of an SN assassin, if there was one. There were no defense lawyers at the Warren Commission so Spector & Co. got away with the phony re-enactment, and since critics of the Warren Commission failed to point out the problem, the HSCA adopted the WC reenactment as if it was legally admissable evidence. There were no defense lawyers at the HSCA either.

Dale Myers also did a computer reenactment showing the line of sight from the SN, but Myers too left out the follow-up car. Elm Street runs DOWNHILL, so the follow-up car was HIGHER than JFK's limo by the time we get to Z312.

As we stand today, no one has proven that is EVEN POSSIBLE for an SN gunman to FIND JFK's head in his cross-hairs circa Z312. On the other hand, a gunman on the elevated grassy knoll, say at HATMAN's location, faced NO OBSTACLE WHATSOEVER in aiming at JFK.

THe only comment I can make as a layman in the medical field is that it strikes me that the damage seen on the X-Ray you showed also looks consistent with some type of exploding bullet from the front. It looks to me like the DIRECT DAMAGE is towards the front (we are looking at the right side) while it also looks as though bones at the back of the skull are fractured OUTWARD, a form of INDIRECT DAMAGE perhaps caused by the force of brain matter driven backward.

Still, I found something recently that also supports the possibility the fatal shot came from the front. As a result, I remain open, if only slightly, to that possibility.

Delighted to see you finally got round to viewing the ZFILM in full motion!

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Pat, you continue to astound me. Here you are citing the HSCA head shot as though it were tenable, when it is obviously faked; assume that shots were fired from the "assassin's lair", which does not appear to be the case; and appeal to one of the very frames that film experts have concluded was faked by painting in the "blob" and the blood spray.

I am also stunned that you suggest a Mannlicher-Carcano bullet could "explode" if it hit the skull at an angle. These bullets were copper-jacketed and had a lead core. There was nothing "explosive" about them. If you instead are suggesting that they actually were "explosive", then I must presume that you think this was fired by someone other than Oswald.

That, of course, would be a giant step in the right direction, since we have multiple witnesses who placed him in or around the lunch room on the 2nd floor at the time of the assassination. In case you missed it, Robert Groden has now identified yet another, who was making change for Oswald so he could purchase a coke at the time they heard "firecrackers".

Your accent on the views of the head wound from the side are consistent with the flap having been blown open and exposing brain, while doing serious damage to the ear. That can account for the witness reports that seem to preoccupy you. What it does not do is deal with the massive blow-out to the back of the head, where you have lost your way.

I really do not understand how you can have arrived at such a state of confusion about the medical evidence, except, of course, that you have paid no attention to our efforts to sort out the authentic from the fake. Unless you come to grips with the differences between the real and the phony, you will continue to embrace a hopelessly inadequate theory.

The movements of Kennedy apparent in the Zapruder frames following the head shot, when taken in conjunction with the evidence previously discussed, including the fact that no bloody back spatter emanates from the back of Kennedy's head in the film, can therefore be taken as a clear indication the bullet striking Kennedy at frame 313 struck his skull at the supposed exit, most probably from behind.

Greetings, Pat and Happy New Year: I am very interested in your theory that the Parkland doctors perception of the head wound was distorted, and I do intend to check that out further on your web site.

But I am puzzled by the above paragraph. You are saying that the explosion on the right side of JFK's head represents the IMPACT/ENTRY, which makes sense to me, but then you add the puzzler that this bullet was fired from BEHIND.

I just cannot see how a bullet from behind could enter on the right side of JFK's head, when the right side of JFK's head does not appear to be in the line of sight of a gunman firing from the TSBD (or the Dal-Tex).

However, I CAN see that this explosion on the right side of JFK's head is consistent with the entry of a shot from the right front, possibly involving some kind of explosive bullet.

Ray, when one positions a skull in the position of JFK's at 312, and then views it from the angle of the sniper's nest at 312, the right side of the head above the ear is readily visible. I spent some time on this a few years back with string and skulls. If an M/C bullet hit the skull at this location and from this angle, moreover, it would strike the skull almost on edge, and encounter far more resistance than a bullet merely striking the skull straight on. Such a bullet would basically explode. If this is what happened, one would expect fragments in the scalp at this location (the HSCA's David Davis reported that he thought there were fragments in the scalp at this location, but that he could not explain them). If this is what happened, furthermore, the largest fragments would be expected to be deflected forward. This, in turn, could explain why the fragment impact on the windshield was out of line with a trajectory traveling through the head from either of the proposed entrances on the back of the head. It could also explain why this fragment was covered with human skin. It could also explain the fragment hitting the curb near Tague, which was only slightly out of line with the head shot at 313.

The beveling on the Harper fragment also suggests a shot fired from behind.

Still, I found something recently that also supports the possibility the fatal shot came from the front. As a result, I remain open, if only slightly, to that possibility.

[Peter McGuire]

Still, I found something recently that also supports the possibility the fatal shot came from the front. As a result, I remain open, if only slightly, to that possibility.

Oh thats great Pat!

In the meantime; nothing you say has any validity.

Edited January 3, 2010 by Peter McGuire

[Dean Hagerman]

Still, I found something recently that also supports the possibility the fatal shot came from the front. As a result, I remain open, if only slightly, to that possibility.

Oh thats great Pat!

In the meantime; nothing you say has any validity.

Nothing that Pat says is valid?

Can you tell me why that is Peter?

While I dont agree with Pat on some things I think his research is solid

[Peter McGuire]

.Still, I found something recently that also supports the possibility the fatal shot came from the front. As a result, I remain open, if only slightly, to that possibility

Oh thats great Pat!

In the meantime; nothing you say has any validity.

Nothing that Pat says is valid?

Can you tell me why that is Peter?

While I don't agree with Pat on some things I think his research is solid

It is not a matter of "some things." It is this;

"Still, I found something recently that also supports the possibility the fatal shot came from the front. As a result, I remain open, if only slightly, to that possibility."

I find these comments from someone who “believes in conspiracy” indescribable.

Anyone who denies Secret Service involvement and the frontal shot may just as well root for the other team.

Edited January 3, 2010 by Peter McGuire

[Dean Hagerman]

.Still, I found something recently that also supports the possibility the fatal shot came from the front. As a result, I remain open, if only slightly, to that possibility

Oh thats great Pat!

In the meantime; nothing you say has any validity.

Nothing that Pat says is valid?

Can you tell me why that is Peter?

While I don't agree with Pat on some things I think his research is solid

It is not a matter of "some things." It is this;

"Still, I found something recently that also supports the possibility the fatal shot came from the front. As a result, I remain open, if only slightly, to that possibility."

I find these comments from someone who “believes in conspiracy” indescribable.

Anyone who denies Secret Service involvement and the frontal shot may just as well root for the other team.

I see Peter, I was sure that Pat believed in a front head shot, I did not read that quote of his closly enough

So Pat you dont believe in a frontal head shot but are open to it? Why are you just open to it? Have you ever believed in a front head shot? If so when did you start to doubt it?

Dean

[Josiah Thompson]

Luis Alvarez could not find any instance where a startle "smear" occurred in the same frame as the obvious impact of a bullet. This is because Alvarez was convinced that shots came only from the Depository. Hence, there had to be a gap between the shot and Zapruder's reaction. Don Thomas has worked out the math in detail. Because the Z313 shot was fired so close to him, the impact of the bullet upon JFK and Zapruder's startle reaction occur simultaneously. You can find all this explained in various published works by Don Thomas. Obviously, this work is unknown to Professor Fetzer or he wouldn't have gone so far out on a limb only to have it chopped off.

Now you should ask: "Okay, how does Alvarez explain the this simultaneity of impact and startle reaction."

He opines that the shock wave from the bullet moved Zapruder's camera. Why this is silly doesn't even require explanation.

I really admire your loyalty to your tribe. Only if it didn't lead you astray everything would be just peachy keen!

Josiah Thompson

But there appears to be no basis for the purported "smear". In particular, you appeal to the occurrence of a "startle response" by Abraham Zapruder that caused the alleged "smear", when even Luis Alvarez did not find any instance in which a "startle response" and a bullet hit took place at the same time. Your suggestion that the shooter was closer to Zapruder is unpersuasive. The bullet was traveling much faster than sound, even if that had been the case. The neurological response itself would have taken time. The hit and the response cannot have happened at the same time. Your argument is clearly based upon a false premise.

Perfect statement Prof Fetzer, you took the words right out of my mouth

Dean

[Peter McGuire]

Luis Alvarez could not find any instance where a startle "smear" occurred in the same frame as the obvious impact of a bullet. This is because Alvarez was convinced that shots came only from the Depository. Hence, there had to be a gap between the shot and Zapruder's reaction. Don Thomas has worked out the math in detail. Because the Z313 shot was fired so close to him, the impact of the bullet upon JFK and Zapruder's startle reaction occur simultaneously. You can find all this explained in various published works by Don Thomas. Obviously, this work is unknown to Professor Fetzer or he wouldn't have gone so far out on a limb only to have it chopped off.

Now you should ask: "Okay, how does Alvarez explain the this simultaneity of impact and startle reaction."

He opines that the shock wave from the bullet moved Zapruder's camera. Why this is silly doesn't even require explanation.

I really admire your loyalty to your tribe. Only if it didn't lead you astray everything would be just peachy keen!

Josiah Thompson

And this garbage brings us to what conclusion?

Edited January 3, 2010 by Peter McGuire

[Dean Hagerman]

I really admire your loyalty to your tribe. Only if it didn't lead you astray everything would be just peachy keen!

Josiah Thompson

I think you meant lead me to the promise land

I still follow your theory in SSID, no matter if you changed your mind or not

Dean

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

The bullet was traveling much faster than sound, even if, in this case, the shooter had been closer to Zapruder. The occurrence of the neurological "startle" response itself would have taken time. The hit and the response cannot have happened at the same time. Your argument is clearly based upon a false premise. You have no basis for your repudiation of the "double hit" hypothesis and nothing you have said could possibly explain how Richard Feynman could have arrived at the same conclusion. No one is buying this drivel. Come clean, Tink. Tell us why you were then and continue to this day to obfuscate evidence about the death of JFK! <Removed by Moderator>

Luis Alvarez could not find any instance where a startle "smear" occurred in the same frame as the obvious impact of a bullet. This is because Alvarez was convinced that shots came only from the Depository. Hence, there had to be a gap between the shot and Zapruder's reaction. Don Thomas has worked out the math in detail. Because the Z313 shot was fired so close to him, the impact of the bullet upon JFK and Zapruder's startle reaction occur simultaneously. You can find all this explained in various published works by Don Thomas. Obviously, this work is unknown to Professor Fetzer or he wouldn't have gone so far out on a limb only to have it chopped off.

Now you should ask: "Okay, how does Alvarez explain the this simultaneity of impact and startle reaction."

He opines that the shock wave from the bullet moved Zapruder's camera. Why this is silly doesn't even require explanation.

I really admire your loyalty to your tribe. Only if it didn't lead you astray everything would be just peachy keen!

Josiah Thompson

But there appears to be no basis for the purported "smear". In particular, you appeal to the occurrence of a "startle response" by Abraham Zapruder that caused the alleged "smear", when even Luis Alvarez did not find any instance in which a "startle response" and a bullet hit took place at the same time. Your suggestion that the shooter was closer to Zapruder is unpersuasive. The bullet was traveling much faster than sound, even if that had been the case. The neurological response itself would have taken time. The hit and the response cannot have happened at the same time. Your argument is clearly based upon a false premise.

Perfect statement Prof Fetzer, you took the words right out of my mouth

Dean

Removed personal attack on member

Edited January 3, 2010 by Evan Burton