The forward head movement - an illusion?

[Daniel Gallup]

Daniel,

What makes you so sure the red-spot photo was taken at the onset of the autopsy?

John Canal, among others, insist that picture was taken later on--after the brain was removed from JFK's head.

(And please don't tell me you think there was no brain in JFK's head at all when he arrived at Bethesda at 8 PM.)

David, you raise an interesting point. It is my understanding that photos need to be taken at the onset to show the condition of the body as it comes in; someone let me know if I am wrong here. And yes, it would seem photos could be taken at any time to document some finding. Certainly the photo showing the top of Kenendy's head (nose pointing upward) and body was taken early because we see no y-incision; so also the stare of death photo. But I remember reading in BE and elsewhere that the autopsy was underway some time before the back wound was discovered. If so, then the BOH photo could not have been taken at the onset. What can we say of its timing? The earliest it could have been taken, if it is genuine, would be after midnight, since that is when bones brought into the morgue enabled the doctors to identify a bullet entrance wound. Since the BOH appears to show an entrance wound, it had to have been taken after midnight.

Strange that a picture so pivotal in detailing Kennedy's wounds would be taken at the end of the autopsy, when the brain would have been removed and preserved as a specimen. Best, Daniel

[David Von Pein]

I think the argument that [Josiah] Thompson makes based upon Dave Wimp is better.

Namely that the frame is smudged or blurred.

IMO, that is a ridiculous argument, and for this reason:

Frame 312, which is just an instant before the bullet hits JFK in the head, is probably the clearest frame in Mr. Zapruder's whole film (it's certainly one of the very clearest and non-blurred frames in the whole 26-second home movie, at any rate).

So, to believe that the forward head movement between Z312 and Z313 is caused by the film being "blurred" or "smudged" (smudged? WTF?), we'd have to believe that this blurring occurred immediately after one of the very clearest of all frames in the entire Zapruder film had just been exposed through Mr. Z's camera.

Now, I'm no photography expert, and I suppose such blurring is possible under the right circumstances, but I think a key to knowing that the "blurring" theory at Z313 is not valid is by looking at Z312, which is a beautiful frame, with no blurring whatsoever. It would seem to me, therefore, that BOTH Z312 and Z313 would need to contain some degree of substantial blurring in order for any such theory to be plausible concerning the forward head movement being caused by merely blurring of the film frames.

Also: What do you suppose the odds are of such a theory being accurate? I.E., a separate "blurring" event occurs on the film at the exact instant when President Kennedy just happens to get struck in the head by a bullet and his head appears to be moving forward slightly.

It appears to me that certain conspiracy theorists will do anything and propose virtually any alternate theory in order to deny the obvious fact that President John F. Kennedy was struck in the head by just one bullet--which was a bullet that came from behind.

Edited June 4, 2011 by David Von Pein

[David Von Pein]

No.

Now, answer a question of mine, Jimbo:

Do you think ITEK Corp. lied in 1975 when they concluded that there was 2.3 inches of measurable movement forward of JFK's head between frames 312 and 313 of Mr. Zapruder's home movie?

Edited June 4, 2011 by David Von Pein

[William Kelly]

No.

Now, answer a question of mine, Jimbo:

Do you think ITEK Corp. lied in 1975 when they concluded that there was 2.3 inches of measurable movement forward of JFK's head between frames 312 and 313 of Mr. Zapruder's home movie?

Hey, Wait a minute there DVP,

ITEK Corp. is not an independent body, but a major defense contractor that, along with KODAK, were responsible for the cameras and film used by the U2 and satellites that replaced it.

So whatever they have to say officially must be considered as part of the problem.

I was once contacted by a retired ITEK employee who said that while he worked there in the 60s, ITEK as given the Z-film to study scientifically, and he was adamant that this was before CBS hired ITEK to do the study you are talking about in the 70s. I will try to dig up this info from my files, but he said that while talking with those who did the Z-film studies over lunch at ITEK cafeteria, they told him that there was evidence at the end of the film of a gunman on the grassy knoll.

In any case, ITEK, like KODAK, had BIG financial stakes in their cooperation with the government over the U2 and CORONA projects, that extended over decades and hundreds of millions of dollars, so their official conclusions would be whatever their paymasters paid them to conclude.

Do I think ITEK lied? I don't know, but knowing the background of the company and having talked with one of their former employees, I would say they would lie if they wanted to keep their paychecks.

Bill Kelly

JFKcountercoup

Edited June 4, 2011 by William Kelly

[David Von Pein]

Bill Kelly,

Do think JFK's head is physically moving forward a little bit between Z312 and 313 here?

Or do you think this movement is merely an illusion? ....

Edited June 4, 2011 by David Von Pein

[William Kelly]

I don't know what to think Dave.

It certainly looks to me like he's getting shot in the head.

I don't know if any such movement is proof of anything, especially of the direction of the bullet.

Nor does the case for conspiracy depend on a gunman in front, or two shooters, since even if a lone gunman - the Sixth Floor Sniper was responsible for all the damage, the evidence of conspiracy is overwhelming.

I guess I could decide an opinion and answer your question as to what I see in what you show - but since I know its been passed through a wringer by Time-Life, the Secret Service, KODAK, ITEK and you, or whoever made that scene, so I don't know that its an accurate rendering of what really happened.

It convinces me that JFK's head was blown open, his brains blown out, and he was murdered by a bullet to the head.

BK

JFKcountercoup

Edited June 4, 2011 by William Kelly

[David Von Pein]

It convinces me that JFK's head was blown open, his brains blown out, and he was murdered by a bullet to the head.

Just one bullet to the head, Bill?

[David Von Pein]

yawn

[David Von Pein]

~stretch~

[Don Roberdeau]

(next response)

Edited June 5, 2011 by Don Roberdeau

[Don Roberdeau]

DSL Interjection: what is "amazing" is your apparent insistence on ignoring the evidence that (a) there was a cover intercept; (b ) the autopsy doctor recognized the situation and said so aloud (as recorded by the FBI agents); and (c ) a number of bystander witnesses also attest to the fact that there was no brain in the head when the body first arrived.

Funny, isn't it, Mr. Lifton, that the HSCA and the WC and the Rockefeller Commission and the Clark Panel "ignored" the very same evidence that has led you down the "body alteration" path?

Now, who should I go with -- the FOUR above-mentioned official Government panels who were assigned the task of looking at the JFK murder case (or various peripheral aspects of it at least)?

Or should I go with David S. Lifton, a person who thinks that all the shots came from the FRONT of JFK in Dealey Plaza, and who also thinks the President's body was altered with lightning-like swiftness and efficiency, even though the stealing of JFK's body was literally impossible to do, given the timeframe and the witnesses surrounding the alleged "interception" of the body?

Call me goofy -- but that's not really a very tough choice, DSL.

First of all, Mr. DVP, this is really a silly "argument from authority," and I would think you would know better.

Second, with regard to all the investigations that occurred after the assassination--the WC, the Clark Panel, the Rockefeller Commission, and the HSCA--not one of them really had any clear idea that one possibility to explain the contradictory data in this case was that the President's body had been covertly intercepted and that the wounds had been altered prior to autopsy. So citing these various inquiries simply provides you with a convenient way to side-step the key issues.

But, having said that, here are my brief comments on each of those investigations:

Re the Warren Commission: I have not only (of course) studied the Warren Report, but I have also studied, and in considerable detail, the office files (or "working papers") of the entire staff of the Warren Commission. Each and every folder, each and every memo. There is absolutely no doubt in my mind--based on that documentary evidence--that the lawyers on the Warren Commission hadn't the faintest idea that their own files contained evidence that (a) the President's body was covertly intercepted and (b ) that the wounds had been altered. Those lawyers convened in early January, 1964. The investigative outline(s) used to structure their inquire all reflect the presumption of Oswald's sole guilt. One in particular that I recall was dated January 6, 1964, by David Belin. It outlines the very same case reflected in the Warren Report. By late March, 1964, Redlich, Eisenberg, Belin et al had created the outline for the Warren Report that was actually sent to the printer in September, 1964. All of it was centered around the presumed validity of the so-called "sniper's nest" found at the Sixth Floor of the TSBD. Anyone attempting to say that the WCR was a deliberate coverup and that all the attorneys colluded have to deal with the contrary documentary evidence resident in these office files. Although I am more than willing to entertain "individual departures" from this major thesis, the major thesis--documented in these files--remains there, and it is striking: a presumption of Oswald's guilt, from the outset, and a series of preliminary reports, and outlines, that reflect the final version of the Warren Report laid out, for all to see, and dated March 30, 1964, plus or minus a few days.

Good Day David .... Another "coincidence" (among the warrenatti's welters of their many self-proclaimed, hypothetical "co-ink-a-dence's") that also occurred on 3-30-64 (a mere 12 days after the warrenatti had begun its field investigation in Dallas**) the NY Times carried an AP story reporting that the warrenatti - "had found no evidence that the crime was anything but the irrational act of an individual, according to knowledgeable sources."

I wonder which self-serving, disingenuous, overly-anxious, pathological "Truth-seeker(s)" on the WC and/or from Hoover's FBI (deliberately?) crafted-"leaked" to The People via the AP that hopeful 3-30-64 over-generalization?

** This warrenatti crafted-promulgated AP story also appeared only 3 days after the 3-27-63 multiple "reenactment" tests with the Carcano rifle found on the TSBD 6th floor. (so, at the very least there were rumors/memo(s) about the results of the 3-27-64 rifle "reenactment" tests that were probably/most likely floating betwixt the warrenatti and/or FBI et al before the 3-30-64 AP story)

Those 3-27-63 rifle "reenactment" tests were conducted for the "Truth seekers" in the WC by the US Army at the Aberdeen Proving Grounds on March 27, 1964 (WR193-194) and are discussed in the testimony of U.S. Army expert, Ronald Simmons (03H441-451).

Three MASTER riflemen each fired two series of three shots using the the Carcano rifle found on the TSBD 6th floor, AFTER the scope had to be shimmed.

The stated reason for those "reenactment" tests was to, "determine the possibility of scoring hits with this weapon on a given target at a given distance under rapid-fire conditions". (03H444)

In other words, the scope alignment was not even close to accurate enough to hit the JFK target at the necessary distance, so it had to be modified with shims to try and make it more accurate.

This in itself nullifies these "reenactment" rifle tests, and makes it, for all intents and purposes, invalid.

You have to shoot the weapon in the condition it was in when the crime was committed, or, your results are absolutely worthless.

As if using MASTER riflemen (but they did not, for example, use a multiple-times convicted-felon who had very, very briefly been a U.S. Marine documented pathological-lieing reject who was booted-out after only months into his contracted service), and, as if the warrenatti modifying the weapon for accuracy wasn't enough for them ---- the warrenatti "Truth seekers" afforded their MASTER rifleman to fire at set up STATIONARY targets located at 175, 240, and 265 feet away.

The warrenatti "Truth seekers" also afforded their MASTER rifleman to shoot from a tower only 30-foot above the target - instead of the DP realities of the warrenatti-apologists, supposed, "lone nut" "snipers lair" elevated at 61+ feet above President Kennedy's EOP (or was it 61+ feet above his cowlick, and/or triggered from the Dal-Tex Building's next door, west face, LN-bullet-trajectories-duplicating-near-perfectly roof line?).

These "reenactment" MASTERS were given two chances to fire three shots each. That's six chances to fire 18 shots.

In the first 9 shots, they missed 3. In the second 9 shots, they missed 2.

The warrenatti "Truth seekers" crafted purposes was to give the shooters EVERY POSSIBLE ADVANTAGE to duplicate or better what their "lone nut" was alleged to have done, in order to try to "prove" that it was possible.

And guess what ?

Even with all of those advantages that they had, only one MASTER, rifleman Miller, beat the, supposed, "lone nut's" time (twice), but he also missed the second shot (Connally) on both his chances.

Keep in mind these were MASTER rifleman (the highest ranking), shooting with a modified rifle, firing at stationary targets, and from a substantially lower elevation.... not even close to what the warrenatti (and its apologists) have failed miserably in their trying to persuade the vast majority of persons to believe transpired inside Dealey Plaza.

....

From my own experience with the late Wesley Liebeler (who was the closest thing to a "Devil's advocate", but whose area was primarily Oswald's biography), he was shocked, astounded, and amazed when, on October 24, 1966, I not only showed him the statement about pre-autopsy "surgery of the head area, namely, in the top of the skull," in the Sibert and O'Neill FBI report, but spelled out what I thought it meant.

There is no question in my mind that he had never thought of any such possibility before, and neither (as far as I can tell) had anyone else on the Commission or its staff.

On that day--as described in my Chapter 9, of B.E.--Liebeler called Arlen Specter. He wouldn't let me hear what Specter said, but when Liebeler emerged from the private office, and I asked "What did he say?", he responded (as I reported in B.E.): "Arlen hopes he gets through this with his balls intact."

Anyway, so much for the WC and its staff.

Regarding the Clark Panel, convened in Feb-March, 1968, to examine the autopsy photographs and X-rays. I have no reason to believe that the Clark Panel conducted the kind of investigation that would have been necessary to pursue the matter of pre-autopsy alteration of the body. First of all, and fyi, I happened to have personally encountered Ramsay Clark, then either AG or Deputy AG, in early 1969, at a UCLA function, and when I raised the issue, he claimed he had never heard of it before, and said something to the effect of "And if I had, I would never have told Robert Kennedy about it." (or something like that). Second: the kind of investigation necessary would be to do what I described in Best Evidence: to (a) compare the Dallas and Bethesda descriptions of the wounds; and (b ) call the FBI agents in for careful follow-up question and (c ) trace the chain of possession on the body (as I did in B.E.) etc.

None of that was done. The Clark Panel simply looked at the X-rays and photographs, and reported what they saw. I see no reason to believe they ever investigated the hypothesis in any manner. Nonetheless, you will note the following anomaly reflected in their report, and this concerns the report of Sibert and O'Neill that, during the autopsy, the doctor stuck his finger in the shallow back wound.

As the Clark Panel notes: the wound was "too small to permit the insertion of a finger."

Now right there you have another indicia that something is terribly wrong. Dr.Humes,according to sworn testimony, stuck his finger in the wound; the photographs show a wound "too small" to permit that. Right there is evidence that either (a) the doctors hallucinated, or (b ) the photos in evidence do not show that wound. (And in fact, I believe it lies beneath the ruler).

With regard to the Rockefeller Panel, I see no reason that they did any kind of investigation that addressed the integrity of the evidence.

Jumping to the HSCA investigation--they defininitely had the opportunity to pursue the issue. With regard to the matter of "chain of pssession," the records show that HSCA staffer Mark Flanagan called up Greer, and Kellerman (in December, 1978) and basically said: "You guys didn't alter the body, did you?" THe result of each call was a 1 page report saying nothing happened to the body. That is like asking the fox to fill out an affidavit that "nothing happened" at the hen house.

As to the wounds being altered, the HSCA report simly acknowledges that the Dallas doctors all saw an occipital wound (of exit) but that such was not on the body, at Bethesda, and so they all must have been wroing.

The first legal body to really pursue the matter--albeit years later-was the ARRB Because of the presence of Doug Horne on the staff,and the presence of Jeremy Gunn, some half dozen witnesses were called. As I have posted elsewhere on this forum, Horne's reaction to the ARRB was to come out in strong support of my work.

Again, here is Horne's statement, and I QUOTE:

David Lifton's thesis in his 1981 book "Best Evidence" has been validated by the work of the ARRB staff. Our unsworn interviews and depositions of Dallas (Parkland Hospital) medical personnel and Bethesda autopsy participants confirm that the President's body arrived at Bethesda Naval Hospital in a markedly different condition than it was in when seen at Parkland for life-saving treatment. My conclusion is that wounds were indeed altered and bullets were indeed removed prior to the autopsy at Bethesda Naval Hospital. This procedure altered the autopsy conclusions and presented a false picture of how the shooting took place. In most essential details, David Lifton "got it right" in his 1981 bestseller. (He has modified his views since his book was published on the "when" and "where," and I concur with his changes, which he will publish at a later date.)

Numerous persons the ARRB deposed or interviewed (FBI agents Sibert and O'Neill, mortician Tom Robinson, and others) have essentially disowned the autopsy photographs showing the back of JFK's head intact. O'Neill said the photos of the back of the head looked "doctored" (by which he meant that he thought the wound had been repaired - put back together - not that the photo looked altered), and Sibert said the back of the head looked "reconstructed." Tom Robinson of Gawler's funeral home said there was a large hole in the back of the head where it looks intact in the photos. Pathologist J. Thornton Boswell said that there was a lot of bone missing in the right rear of the head behind where the scalp looks intact -but did not explain how the scalp could be intact if the bone in the right rear of the skull was missing! (See the ARRB deposition transcripts of Frank O'Neill, James Sibert, and J. Thornton Boswell, as well as the unsworn interview report of the ARRB interview with Tom Robinson.) UNQUOTE

So: When the matter was pursued, one of the key persons in charge has come out publicly and said my thesis was in fact correct.

DSL

6/1/11; 1:50 AM PDT

Los Angeles, CA

Best Regards in Research,

+++Don

Donald Roberdeau

U.S.S. John F. Kennedy, CV-67, plank walker

Sooner, or later, The Truth emerges Clearly

For your considerations....

Homepage: President KENNEDY "Men of Courage" speech, and

Assassination Evidence, Witnesses, Suspects + Outstanding

Researchers Discoveries and Considerations, in One Convenient

Resource....http://droberdeau.bl...ination_09.html

Dealey Plaza Map Detailing 11-22-63 Victims precise locations,

Witnesses, Films & Photos, Evidence, Suspected bullet trajectories,

Important information & Considerations, in One Convenient

Resource....http://img690.images...dated110110.gif

Visual Report: "The First Bullet Impact Into President Kennedy: while

JFK was Hidden Under the 'magic-limbed-ricochet-tree' "....http://img504.images...k1102308ms8.gif

Visual Report: Reality versus C.A.D. : the Real World, versus,

Garbage-In, Garbage-Out....http://img515.images...ealityvscad.gif

Discovery: "Very Close JFK Assassination Witness ROSEMARY WILLIS

Zapruder Film Documented 2nd Headsnap:

West, Ultrafast, and Directly Towards the Grassy Knoll"....http://droberdeau.bl...assination.html

File: President KENNEDY Assassination Research, Maps, & Discoveries

for Your Considerations....http://profile.image...user/droberdeau

T ogether

E veryone

A chieves

M ore

Edited June 6, 2011 by Don Roberdeau

[Bernice Moore]

Hi Don; here are some photos , studies done by stewart galanor,from his book.''cover-up''.... on the towers test shots etc...fyi..b

Edited June 6, 2011 by Bernice Moore

[Don Roberdeau]

Hi Don; here are some photos , studies done by stewart galanor,from his book.''cover-up''.... on the towers test shots etc...fyi..b

Good Day Bernice .... Thank You.

Stew's book + his dedicated works are also outstanding.

(for anyone who wants to obtain his book, "Cover-up," i do have an extra copy of it available from my JFK library collection.... along with many additional extra copies of rare + hard-to-find titles, videos, audios, etc.... Feel free to contact me privately)

Best Regards in Research,

+++Don

Donald Roberdeau

U.S.S. John F. Kennedy, CV-67, plank walker

Sooner, or later, The Truth emerges Clearly

For your considerations....

Homepage: President KENNEDY "Men of Courage" speech, and

Assassination Evidence, Witnesses, Suspects + Outstanding

Researchers Discoveries and Considerations, in One Convenient

Resource....http://droberdeau.bl...ination_09.html

Dealey Plaza Map Detailing 11-22-63 Victims precise locations,

Witnesses, Films & Photos, Evidence, Suspected bullet trajectories,

Important information & Considerations, in One Convenient

Resource....http://img690.images...dated110110.gif

Visual Report: "The First Bullet Impact Into President Kennedy: while

JFK was Hidden Under the 'magic-limbed-ricochet-tree' "....http://img504.images...k1102308ms8.gif

Visual Report: Reality versus C.A.D. : the Real World, versus,

Garbage-In, Garbage-Out....http://img515.images...ealityvscad.gif

Discovery: "Very Close JFK Assassination Witness ROSEMARY WILLIS

Zapruder Film Documented 2nd Headsnap:

West, Ultrafast, and Directly Towards the Grassy Knoll"....http://droberdeau.bl...assination.html

File: President KENNEDY Assassination Research, Maps, & Discoveries

for Your Considerations....http://profile.image...user/droberdeau

T ogether

E veryone

A chieves

M ore

Edited June 6, 2011 by Don Roberdeau

[Bernice Moore]

your very welcome, yes galanor's ''cover-up'' is a great little book, with so much information within those pages, and very easily read and understood, for especially any newbie, it spells all out..and ..clearly...b

[William Kelly]

Conspiracies That Parallax: JFK's Assassination.....et al....

by Dan Schneider, 12/21/03

….in most of life's endeavors the real truth of the thinggenerally does not lie at such extremes, but- rather- lies in the middle- callit Occam's Area. Of course,most know what Occam'sRazor is- it's thegenerally accepted wisdom that the simplest answer that best fits the knownfacts to a problem or inquiry is usually the correct 1. I'll delve into thisapothegm later in the essay. I start off this essay with this premise because Ibelieve it to be true- especially when used to describe mysteries &conspiracies from the Ancients through Jack the Ripper through sightings oflake monsters & hairy bipeds & all the way back, again, to the veryorigins of myth, itself. In this lengthy jaunt I will hope to show that theOccam's Area for these 2 greatest & most enduring mythologies of theAmerica of the last ½ century come down on opposite sides of the fence for each1- in the pro-conspiracy camp regarding the murder of the 35^th President ofthe United States of America- John Fitzgerald Kennedy, & in theanti-conspiracy camp for the alleged abductions of human beings bynon-terrestrial entities. I will do so by vetting the few known & agreed uponfacts in each case, comparing the mythic & psychologic elements in both,show their strengths & weakness vis-à-vis conspiracies, show elements ofeach that seem congruent & incongruent to each other, detail my ownbackground in regards to forming opinions on both myths, examine the role ofthe media in both myths, & then toss out some of my own conclusions &opinions.

The reason for my essaying these topics is not onlybecause of their intrinsic worth as bits of Americana, & humanhistory, but because of my recent reacquaintance with both topics. On 11/20/03, at 8 pm CST, the ABC network aired PeterJennings Reporting: The Kennedy Assassination- Beyond Conspiracy, whichposited that the Warren Commission's finding that Lee Harvey Oswald was thelone assassin of JFK was correct. The special was light on substance but heavyon rehash. The 'supposed' new evidence was a computer graphics specialist namedDale Myers who designed a supposedly accurate 3 dimensional computerreproduction of Dealey Plaza in Dallas at the timeof the shooting. This simulation, it was claimed, decisively proves the'Single- or Magic- Bullet' theory was correct, & that LHO was the lonegunman. Contrary evidence, such as audio evidence of a 4^th shot, dissentfrom Naval coroners regarding the nature of the wounds that killed JFK, themanifest ties of LHO assassinJack Ruby to the Mafia, & certain government agencies, were glossed over asgossip for the rather far-fetched scenario that a deludely patriotic JR did in LHO to spareJackie Kennedy pain. Not to mention that Dale Myers' computer simulation has,according to published & online dissenters, competitors, & cohorts,gone through a # of claimed permutations over the years, each 1 of which tendedto get more anti-conspiratorial as he peddled it around to various mediaoutlets. It's almost as if he was willing to make the model, claim hisdetractors, go whatever way a prospective buyer asked him to make it go.Furthermore, even a cursory viewing of the simulation shows why online commentsfrom dissenters are justified….

….As a critic ofthe warren Commission, myself, I can state that assertions like this do littleto advance the pro-conspiracists' cause. But the important thing to glean ishow both groups distort virtually every piece of evidence- either by outrightdistortion, or omission. Also, note how the passage of time has helped evolveboth camps' versions of history. The anti's have constantly had to fine tunetheir explanations to account for seemingly unending new contradictoryevidence; so much so that every few years they need to offer 'definitiveproof'- which inevitably bears its own flaws, much as Dale Myers' computersimulation is now doing. On the other side, the conspiracists like wiseoverlook & discard what does not work. The key difference, however is thatthe anti-conspiracists must warp any knew & dissenting information to fittheir pat story- not unlike physicists who stretch facts & invent objects& forces to retain the 'Big Bang' theory of cosmic origin, while thepro-conspiracists go to the other extreme, seeming eager to dump whatevertheory was proposed most recently for the latest, & increasingly Byzantine,newer theory that comes along- even though the larger the conspiracy the morelikely it will fail- & even though all other conspiracies seem toeventually be 'outed' by various media outlets- be it known 1s like Watergate, or alleged 1slike the UFO Crash at Roswell, New Mexico.

Science- Good & Bad

A good example of blithe dismissal ofcontrary evidence by the antis is the numerous objections to the so-called 'jeteffect' that shot JFK's head backward as the bullet left him from the front-according to the Warren Commission. There are many websites that dispute &debunk this idea, but the best & most effective 1 is http://www.geocities...ffectrebut.html for it recaps Walter Alvarez's theory(yes, the same man who later gained worldwide fame for predicting the K-TBoundary Extinction Event!), & then debunks it:

A critical look at Luis Alvarez's jet effect explanation for thehead movement of John Kennedy when he was assassinated on November 22, 1963,byTony Szamboti, mechanical engineer

In his article published in the September1976 issue of the AmericanJournal of Physics, Dr. Luis Alvarez claimed that he was pushed by agraduate student of his (PaulHoch) to develop his explanation for what he calls "the odd behavior" of President John F. Kennedy's head (asseen in the Zapruder film) whenhe was assassinated in Dallas, Texas on November 22, 1963. For the convenienceof the reader the meat of the article, where Dr. Alvarez espouses his theoryand shows all of his calculations for what he calls a "jet effect", is shown in the paragraphs below. Theparagraphs are shown in the order in which they appeared and the wording isverbatim from his article. The full article, which also covers his analysis fordetermining the number and timing of the shots, an explanation for the decelerationof the limousine, and the speed of Abraham Zapruder's camera, can be found atany large public library by asking for the September 1976 issue of the American Journal of Physics.

My critique is ofhis "jet effect" explanation for the rearward head snapand follows the portion of his article shown.

Dr. Luis Alvarez's jet effectexplanation of John Kennedy's rearward head movement being possible whenallegedly shot from the rear

Paul Hoch often pressed me for anexplanation of the odd behavior of the President's head, and although I hadn'tobserved it myself, I usually suggested that the head had probably been helderect by muscles controlled by the brain, and that when the controls weresuddenly damaged, the head fell back. I was finally convinced that thisexplanation was incorrect after Paul Hoch handed me a copy of Thompson's bookas I was leaving Berkeley for the February 1969 meeting of the American Physical Society in St. Louis. On the plane I had time to study thebook carefully. It is beautifully printed, with excellent photographs andcarefully prepared graphs. When I studied the graph showing the changingposition of the President's head relative to the moving car's coordinatesystem, I was finally convinced that the assassination buffs were right; therehad to be a real explanation of the fact that the President's head did not fallback, but was driven back by some real force.

And the answer turned outto be simpler than I had expected. I solved the problem (to my own satisfaction, and in aone-dimensional fashion) onthe back of an envelope, as I sat in solitary splendor in the beautiful suitethat the St. Louishotel management supplied me in my capacity as president of the APS.

I concluded that theretrograde motion of the President's head, in response to the rifle bulletshot, is consistent with the law of conservation of momentum, if one paysattention to the conservation of energy as well, and includes the momentum ofall the material in the problem. The simplest way to see where I differ frommost of the critics is to note that they treat the problem as though itinvolved only two interacting masses: the bullet and the head. My analysisinvolves three interacting masses, the bullet, the jet of brain matterobservable in frame 313, and the remaining part of the head. It will turn outthat the jet can carry forward more momentum than was brought in by the bullet,and the head recoils backward, as a rocket recoils when its jet fuel isejected. (Col. William H. Hanson came to the sameconclusion, independently.)

If a block of wood is suspended bystrings from the ceiling, it is called a ballistic pendulum, and physicists orgunsmiths can calculate the velocity of a bullet shot into it to be

v_B = v_WM_W/M_B, (1)

where v_W is the velocity of the wooden blockafter it stops the bullet, M_W andM_B are the masses ofthe wooden block and bullet. Equation (1) follows directly from the law ofconservation of momentum:

v_BM_B = v_WM_W. (2)

In using a ballistic pendulum, wenormally forget that the collision of the bullet and wooden block is veryinelastic. Of the incoming kinetic energy of the bullet, only a small fractionappears as kinetic energy of the moving wooden block; the remaining fraction (1 – f) goes into heating the wood. If M_B << M_W,

KE_W = f(KE_B),

M_Wv_W²/2 = f x M_Bv_B²/2. (3

From (3) and (2)

f = M_B/M_W (4)

For the case of a 10-g bullet, and ablock weighing 10 kg, it can be seen that 99.9% of the incoming kinetic energygoes into heating the block, and only 0.1% appears as mechanical energy.Ballistic pendulums are designed so that they contain the inelasticallydissipated energy. Unfortunately, the human head is not able to contain themajor fraction of the energy carried in by the bullet. This tragic aspect ofthe assassination is clearly visible in frame 313 of the Zapruder film, and isdiscussed in detail in the reports of the autopsy surgeons.

The mechanism of theretrograde recoil turns out to be rather simple, if one remembers that 99.9% ofthe incoming energy must be accounted for. The momentum associated with a givenamount of kinetic energy varies as the square root of the mass of the objectcarrying that kinetic energy:

p = (2MK)^1/2 (5)

where p is themomentum, and K is the kinetic energy of the object with a mass M.

Figure 4 shows what happened when my friendsand I fired bullets at melons that had been wrapped with Scotch glass filamenttape, to mock up the tensile strength of the cranium. Under the influence ofthe bullet, some of the material making up the melon breaks through there inforcement, and carries momentum in the forward direction. (Frame 313 of the Zapruder film shows this same phenomenon.) Aswe shall now see, the momentum carried forward in this way can be much larger than the momentum brought in by the bullet. For example, if the bullet weighed0.1% of the melon weight, and if 10% of the incoming kinetic energy was used topropel 10% of the mass of the melon forward, then the momentum of the jetexpelled forward would be(10)^1/2 times that of the incoming bullet. (I will use subscripts, b forbullet, j for forward moving jet, and m for melon.)

P_j = (2M_jK_j)^1/2 = (2 x 100M_b x 0.1K_b)^1/2

= (10)^1/2 (2M_bK_b)^1/2 = (10)^1/2p_b (6)

since = M_j = 0.1M_m 100M_b, K_j = 0.1K_b. The melon would then recoil backward with about twice the velocity it would have beenexpected to go forward, assuming it were made of wood. This is because the melon,acting at first as a ballistic pendulum, acquires a forward velocity equal to v_m|BP= p_b / M_m. (The notation v_m|BP means the velocity one would expect the melon to have if it contained all thekinetic energy of the bullet, as a ballistic pendulum does.) But in the center of mass of thesystem of the melon, which is moving "forward" with the expected velocity, a jetmoves forward with momentum equal to (10)^1/2p_b---as wehave just seen. It gives the melon an equal and opposite momentum, in themoving (CM) system; in that system, p_m = -(10)^1/2p_b. Ifwe neglect the 10% loss of the mass by the melon to the jet, the recoilvelocity of the melon (in theCM system) is -(10)^1/2 times the expected value. Sincevelocities add vectorially, the final velocity of the melon (in the laboratory system) is [1- (10)^1/2]v_m|BP.Since the square root of 10 is close to 3.16, the observed velocity of themelon is about –2v_m|BP.

If one wants to know moreabout the details of the transfer mechanism of kinetic energy from the bulletto kinetic energy of the fragments thrown forward, he will have to ask someonemore knowledgeable in the theory of fluid mechanics than I am. My intuitive feeling is that the conical shape of the interaction zone is the key to thenonnegligible efficiency of energy transfer. (Itis clear that an appreciable mechanical energy transfer is only possible if the incoming energy can avoid "being thermalized.") The conical region is defined by the small entrance hole and the much larger exit hole in the melon.Transmission lines with tapered internal conductors are efficient transformersof electrical energy, and a tapered bullwhip can smoothly transform the energygiven to a large mass, by the flick of the wrist, into roughly the same energyof a much smaller mass at the tip of the whip. The"crack" of the whip occurs when the tip of thewhip goes supersonic. I believe that in a somewhat analogous manner, but ofcourse in the opposite direction, the kinetic energy of the bullet is given ina "tapered region" to a progressively larger mass in themelon, to achieve the modestly efficient energy transfer that is demonstratedin our experiments.

A critique of the jet effect theoryas an explanation for the rearward head movement of John Kennedy when allegedlyshot from the right rear

The simple claim of an equal andopposite reaction to the blown out brain matter being similar to the thrustdeveloped in a rocket or jet engine, in response to its exhaust, is deceivingif one does not understand the mechanics involved. How thrust is developed in arocket or jet engine and the role the exhaust plays is shown and explained inthe figure and paragraphs below. [Figure Omitted]

Pa<< Po

Pe<< Po

In the above figure Pa stands for atmospheric pressure, Pe for exhaust or exit pressure, and Po for combustion chamber pressure. The highpressure Po of the combustion by-products inside thecombustion chamber of the rocket or jet engine pushes in all directions to formbalanced pairs of opposing forces that nullify one another, except where thehole in the system for the exhaust nozzle is placed. Here the pressure escapesat blazing speed, causing an unbalanced force at the opposite side of thecombustion chamber that pushes the rocket or jet in the opposite direction to thatof the exhaust. The role of the exhaust is to create a lower pressure sideallowing the forward pushing opposite component of the pair to be at a higherpressure, thus causing a forward reaction, which we call thrust. The purpose ofthe exhaust is not to push on anything to create thrust; it is simply torelieve the pressure on one side allowing the opposite side to dominate. If itdid not operate in this fashion a rocket would not work in space. Both rocketsand jets are based on the same principle that causes a pressurized toy balloonto move forward and away when let go with its end untied. Thus one of theoperating requirements of a rocket or jet engine is the generation of a highgas pressure in all directions in its combustion chamber, which can then berelieved at one side to gain an unbalanced force at the opposite side. With theabove having been said to ensure the reader understands how a rocket or jetpropels itself forward, we can now get to a sort of cross examination of whatDr. Alvarez said in his article.

Dr. Alvarez claims that President Kennedy's head recoiled the way arocket recoils when its jet fuel is ejected. However, he does not explain anymechanism for putting an opposite force on the head when the jet was expelledforward. He simply makes the case for the potential of the jet taking out moremomentum than that brought in by the bullet. In order for a "jet effect" to have occurred a pressure would haveto be built up inside the head, acting at least rearward as well as forward, whichwas then relieved on the forward side allowing the rearward pressure todominate and create an unbalanced force in that direction. This usually is donewith either a combustion process or having a pressure on tap in a sealedvolume. The thrust in a jet or rocket engine can be computed based on thechange in momentum of the exhaust gases with respect to time. However, thischange in momentum is directly related to the forward acting pressure oppositethat of the exhaust gases since their initial pressure values are the same butone is allowed to escape. A bullet moving through a fluid creates a highpressure conical shock wave in front of it, as shown in the figure below. The U.S. Army Wound Ballistics Research program has measured the pressureof the shock wave near the projectile as up to 100 atmospheres (1500 psi) in experiments, by shooting throughtissue replicating matter. The frontal shock wave can leave some residualpressure behind it but it is orders of magnitude lower than that in front ofthe projectile. This residual pressure, in what is known as the temporarycavity, has also been measured by the U.S.Army Wound Ballistics Research programas 50 to 60 psi. Thus the change in momentum axiom is not valid in any"jeteffect" caused by aprojectile moving through an encased fluid filled object. Even if theprojectile tumbles the high pressure shock wave, although less symmetric, wouldstill be to the front as shown in the figures below. [Figure Omitted]

Since a "jet effect" requires apressure opposite that of the exhaust it would be caused by the operation ofthis low pressure when the high pressure shock wave exits, although it wouldnot be related to the change in momentum with respect to time of the exhaustingmaterial.

If a "jet effect" occurs when the projectile strikes andpasses through the fluid filled object, it is only one of the forces acting onthe object. The other force is due to shearing through the casing of the objectand this force is in the direction of the projectile. The use of a taped upmelon rather than an object with a shear strength and thickness close to thatof a human skull is misleading. The force required for a 6.5 millimeter (.255 inch) diameter projectile to shear throughthe skin of a taped up melon is orders of magnitude lower than what it is forthat same projectile to shear through a human cranium. The shear strength of amelon rind is approximately 70 psi. In comparison, the shear strength of a livehuman skull is approximately 17,000 psi perpendicular to its grain and 7,100psi parallel to its grain. For dead bone these figures would be 8,500 psi and3,550 psi respectively as it is approximately half the strength of live bone,although it is obviously still much stronger than melon rind. Thus the forcerequired for the same object to penetrate and shear through the same thicknessof live human skull vs. that required for a melon rind, is at least 100 timesgreater. Even for dead bone it is still 50 times greater.

The direction the objecttakes after the projectile passes through it is dependent upon the net force, or the sum of all of the forcesinvolved. The Wound BallisticsResearch program puts thetemporary cavity size as about 12 times the diameter of the projectile. For thecase of a 6.5 millimeter projectile, the temporary cavity would beapproximately 3 inches in diameter giving a circular area of 7 inches. If the 4atmosphere (59 psi) temporary cavity pressure acted on theentire area of this diameter it would generate a force in the direction of theshooter of 413 pounds, a significant amount. However, this force is competingwith the shear forces that act in the opposite direction. The shear force for a6.5 millimeter projectile through a .300 thick melon rind is only 17 pounds.Since the projectile passes through both sides of the melon (there is no dispute as to whetherthe bullet went completely through the melons) the shear force is experienced twice.If the coordinate system is chosen so that the direction of the projectilemotion is positive, then for the case of the melon the net resulting force is

-413pounds + 34 pounds = -379 pound

showing that the net force on the melon is in the direction ofthe shooter. However, as the shear strength of human bone is so much greaterthan that of the melon rind, the shear forces on the skull are much greater.The shear force required for a 6.5 millimeter projectile to penetrate and passthrough a live .300 inch thick human skull (theaverage thickness of a human skull is ¾ centimeters or about .300 of an inch),even using the lower parallel shear bone strength is 1,712 pounds. Since thesame diameter projectile is used and the same size temporary cavity shouldoccur, the "jet effect" will produce a similar amount of forcetoward the shooter of 413 pounds. The netforce equation for shootingthrough a live human skull with a "jeteffect" occurring isthen

-413 pounds + 3424 pounds = + 3011 pounds

showing the net force on the skull is resoundingly in thedirection of the projectile's motion. The trick with the use of the melon toshow the "jet effect", isthat the force required to shear through its skin is so low that it allows the "jet effect" generated force to dominate. Thissituation is not true when a human skull is involved.

The fact that it takes slightlymore than 1700 pounds to shear a 6.5 millimeter diameter through a .300 inchthick item with a shear strength of at least 7,100 psi(live human skull) is indisputable. How a 10 gram (.022 pound) bullet can do this, even when movingat 2000 feet per second, needs to be explained. The force generated in thecollision is a function of the change in momentum per unit time whichessentially is the derivative of the momentum with respect to time or thefamous equation F = ma. The equation for this is

F = (W/g) (Vinitial – Vfinal)

Impulse time

F = m dv = ma

dt

Note: g = 32.2 ft/sec²

where if a.022 pound item is moving at 2000 ft/sec and the collision occurs with a rigiditem in a time frame of 0.8 milliseconds or 1/1250th of a second, a force of1712 pounds will be generated. A projectile traveling at 2000 ft/sec covers a.300 inch distance in 0.0125 milliseconds or 1/80,000th of a second so the timeshown for the impact should not be shocking. In the case of the projectilemoving into and out of a container it will have a collision with the wall ofthe container both on entrance and exit. Thus an even shorter impulse time istrue if the strength and wall thickness of the container are known along withthe penetration diameter. For the case of the head shot on President Kennedythe impulse times had to be less than 0.4 milliseconds when the projectile penetratedthe skull, as the shear forces at both the entrance and exit needed to be over1700 pounds.

In his article, Dr.Alvarez explains what occurs with both the conservation of momentum and conservation of energy in a ballistic pendulum. He goes through the equationsto show how much of the kinetic energy is transformed to internal energy in thependulum, and how little of it is conserved as mechanical energy. With the 10gram bullet and 10 kilogram wooden block he chooses, the amount of kineticenergy transformed to internal energy by friction is over 99%. He then statesthat the mechanism of retrograde recoil is rather simple, if one remembers that 99.9% of the incoming energy must be accounted for. It appears that he is implying that the energy involved as friction in the ballistic pendulum shouldbe accounted for in the matter which is blown out as a jet in the head shot,and that the jet would contain a very large amount of the energy of the bullet.His implication is misleading. In the real world, the jet would absorb only asmuch force and energy from the bullet as its reactive forces will allow. Theamount of force and thus energy in the jet is equal to the reaction its matterexerted upon the bullet. Even so, any "jeteffect" would result from thetemporary cavity pressure which is independent of the shock wave except for thefact that it exits and leaves the temporary cavity pressure to dominate.

There are many who believe that the "jet effect" is a result of Newton's third law of motion at work with thehead being blown back due to the exiting material in the jet pushing againstthe air. Newton's third law is at work here, as it iswhen any force is applied, but not the way those who believe the above think. Newton's third law states "for every reaction there is anequal but opposite reaction". The forces imparted by the projectile tothe skull or melon when shearing through it are only as great as the skull ormelon's resistance to the shearing action, no matter how much force theprojectile is capable of applying. That is one equal and opposite reaction. Theequal and opposite reaction concerning the "jet effect" occurs due to the skullor melon's inertia. The force applied by the rearward acting pressure of thetemporary cavity is equal to the inertial resistance applied to it by the skullor melon. The forward moving jet is not pushing against anything in relation tothe skull or melon.

It is with the use of anenergy equation that Dr. Alvarez attempts to show that more momentum can becarried out by the jet than that which is brought in by the bullet. Hecorrectly states that the momentum associated with a given amount of kineticenergy varies as the square root of the mass of the object carrying thatkinetic energy. However, his use of this rule with assumed numbers for the massof the bullet, mass of the melon, and mass of the jet has no basis nor does heprovide one. He has simply provided assumed masses that work with the equationin the direction that supports his theory. To show how easy it is to manipulatethe equation he uses, we can insert lower values for the kinetic energyabsorbed by the jet and the mass of the jet. Then using the same equation asthe one shown by Dr. Alvarez, as we shall now see, the momentum carried forwardby the jet with these figures is less than the momentum brought in by thebullet. For example, if the bullet weighed 0.1% of the melon weight, and if2.5% of its incoming kinetic energy was used to propel 2.5% of the mass of themelon forward, then the momentum of the jet expelled forward would be (.625)^1/2 times that of the incoming bullet. (again subscripts, b for bullet, j for forward moving jet, and m for melon are used.)

P_j = (2M_jK_j)^1/2 = (2 x 25M_b x 0.025K_b)^1/2

= (.625)^1/2 (2M_bK_b)^1/2 = (.625)^1/2p_b

since M_j = 0.025M_m = 25M_b, K_j = 0.025K_b. The resultwith these assumed values shows the jet to have less momentum than the bullet.Although these values are still probably a little high for the mass of the jetand its kinetic energy, one can now see that the simple use of this equationdoes not necessarily show the jet to have more momentum than the bullet. Byusing the words "if 10% of the incoming kinetic energy were used to propel10% of the mass of the melon forward" Dr.Alvarez shows that he simply assumed the values he needed to make the equationwork in the direction he wanted it to go. If he had proof of what he was sayinghe would have provided it. Since he did testing, which he says validated histheory, he could have simply weighed the melon beforehand and the remainingmelon after the shooting tests, to find the actual mass of the jet displacedfrom the melon. He doesn't mention anything of the sort. However, the amount ofmatter blown forward is inconsequential in the formation of any "jet effect", as the "jet effect" here is strictly dependent on themagnitude of the rearward acting pressure and the area that pressure impingesupon. The temporary cavity pressure is not directly related to the shock wavemomentum like the forward pressure is related to the momentum of the exhaust ina jet engine.

In reality Dr. Alvarez's experiments on tape bound melons could have shown a "jet effect", not with more momentum in the forward moving jet but due to the residual pressure behind the projectile inthe temporary cavity, which would be the force generator. With this pressureand a cooperating permanent cavity, which simultaneously seals for the moment,a force could be generated opposite the direction of the projectile when thefrontal pressure is relieved. If the permanent cavity does not seal at theentrance side, the temporary cavity pressure will be relieved and no forcedeveloped. This random lack of sealing is probably why the"jet effect" was not seen in all of the melonsduring the shooting tests.

The potential for aresidual pressure behind the projectile does exist. For it to cause a "jet effect" it not only requires the sealing ofthe permanent cavity at the entrance and a shear force through the skin of theobject lower than the force it generates, but it also needs to occur earlyenough in the projectile's path to matter. It should be noted that Dr. Alvarezused hunting ammunition with lead projectiles rather than the jacketedammunition of the type the 6.5 millimeterMannlicher-Carcano would have used. As shown in the woundprofiles above, the lead projectiles would have a tendency to mushroom onentrance and create an early temporary cavity. The temporary cavity with thehunting ammunition begins almost immediately after entrance. The jacketedmilitary ammunition temporary cavity occurs much later and is due to yawing ofthe projectile after it has penetrated over 17 centimeters. The human head isapproximately 17 centimeters in diameter and most melons are not much larger,so if shot through a skull or melon the jacketed ammunition would not begin tobuild a temporary cavity pressure until near exit, if at all. This couldexplain why Dr. Alvarez and others did not see a "jet effect" with jacketed ammunition but did withhunting ammunition. The requirement for the permanent cavity to seal would alsoexplain why the "jeteffect" on the melons was notseen every time.

The requirements for the "jet effect" to dominate and cause a motion towardsthe shooter are threefold and they are; the early development of a temporarycavity pressure, a low shear force through the skin or casing of the object,and an entrance side sealing of the permanent cavity. Although a "jet effect" may have occurred in Dr. Alvarez'smelon tests, the main trick was in using an object with a soft skin or casing (the melon) to reduce the shear force. Theearly temporary cavity produced by the lead projectile of the huntingammunition also helped. The taping of the melon rind would allow it to resistany hoop stress due to internal pressure. Since the tensile strength of themelon rind is low, hoop stress could have caused a fracture and spoiled thetest. The tape would also provide for a small entrance and better chance forpermanent cavity sealing at the entrance side. The use of tape on the melonsalso provided these advantages without truly replicating the human skull. Whilethe tape would tend to mock up the tensile strength of the human cranium, itwould not enhance the shear strength very much. It is the shear strength thatis operative here not the tensile strength. The melon tests were thusmisleading and the "jeteffect" seen on the melons,with the use of hunting ammunition and tape, really has no place in attemptingto explain away the back and to the left head motion of President Kennedy asbeing possible if hit from the rear.

The shear forces generatedby the bullet penetrating through the much higher shear strength of thePresident's skull would preclude the appearance of a "jet effect" induced motion in theassassination. This was demonstrated at the Army's Edgewood Arsenal in 1978 during testing done for the HSCA. Ten human skulls, filledwith the same tissue replicating material as that used by the Army Wound Ballistics Research program, were shot with 6.5 millimeterammunition and all 10 skulls went forward, in the direction of the bullet. Nonewent backward.

It seems the onlyplausible explanation, that matches all of the evidence, is a shot from theright front. Only a shot from the right front works scientifically. However,the place that shot has been thought to come from until the last several years,the Grassy Knoll, has been problematic with its angle. A shot from the GrassyKnoll location, when combined with the car's location and posture of thePresident during the fatal shot, would have caused an exit wound on the leftrear of the President's head. All of the Parkland hospital doctors, who workedon the President for over a half hour starting just minutes after the shooting,put the massive head wound at the right rear involving both the occipital andparietal areas. That is midway up the back of the head behind the right ear. Soeven though many of the Dealey Plaza witnesses of the assassination rushed tothe fence at the top of the Grassy Knoll, saying that is where they heardgunfire emanate from, critics of the Warren Commission's explanation have had a hard time pointingto the Grassy Knoll. However, evidence has come up in the last several yearsthat the fatal shot came from a storm drain on the north side of Elm Street. This storm drain is located at anapproximately 12 degree angle and 70 feet to the right front of where the fatalshot hit the President. Its trajectory angle would explain the location of theright rear occipital/parietal exit wound. It would explain the spraying of thepolice officers to the left rear of the car (theywere sprayed so hard that one of the officers, Bobby Hargis, stated afterwardthat he initially thought he was hit). Itwould explain the Harper skull fragment's location to the left rear of the car.And finally it explains the back and to the left direction of the head movementin harmony with the other evidence. The Grassy Knoll shots could have been usedfor diversion so that the storm drain assassin could escape.

After such an impressive debunking Tony Szamboti then lapses in to a bit ofspeculation & ad hominem before concluding:

There is a facet of the Warren Commission's explanation of the assassination which provides considerable difficulty for the grouping of the fatal head shot coming from behind and the head movement explanation by Alvarez's "jet effect" theory. The location of the sixth floor window of the TexasSchool Book Depository, from which it was alleged by the Warren Commission that the fatal head shot was fired,was to the right rear of the President's head when he was shot. There is nodispute about the back and to the left direction his head took after this fatalshot. If the shot that Alvarez says caused his "jet effect" were fired fromthere and followed a straight trajectory, even if it were possible, a "jet effect" here would have caused his head tomove back and to the right. Although there are no bones or equally dense itemsin the center of the human head, some might still say that the bullet couldhave deflected somehow inside the President's head causing it to changedirection towards the right. If this were so, there should then have been asurge to the left front caused by the force of the deflection. Neither of thesetype movements are seen in the Zapruder film. In fact, Dr. Alvarezintentionally stays away from talking about angles in his article, to avoid thedirectional problems stated above. The storm drain shot does explain themovement seen in the Zapruder film, as it would provide both the left andrearward push while keeping the exit wound at the right rear of the head.

My purpose in writing thiscritique was to educate those less likely to understand what the alleged "jet effect", as proposed by Dr. Alvarez, was reallysaying and how it does not apply to the assassination of John Kennedy. While itmay be possible in a melon and one can intuitively sense that it doesn't applyto the assassination, it may be hard to understand and argue against without ascientific background. The fact that such a misleading explanation was putforth, in defense of the Warren Commission's findings, should say volumes to anyonelistening about that commission and its report. I did not write this critiqueto judge Dr. Alvarez as he is now deceased and by all accounts had manylaudable achievements in a distinguished career. However, I do believe he waswrong here and that the "jeteffect" should have neverbeen proposed as an explanation for the President's head motion. Whenexplanations, as misleading as the "jeteffect",have been put upon us by someone working for the commissionofficials responsible for the official investigation, I do not believe we havebeen told the truth by those officials.

TS then lapses into a bit morepreachiness before finally concluding. My point for including such seemingarcana is to show that TS is 1 of many people who have put well-thought outideas into the public arena, only to have them ignored, while people such asDr. Alvarez, as TS correctly notes, have their theories accorded prestige dueto who they know & which camp they fall in to. I am not a trained physicistor mechanical engineer, & this stance by TS could be as wrong as he claimsWA's stance is. But as a lay & amateur science lover the 'jet effect'theory was always weak. As I said, I've seen people shot. I also said, earlierin this essay- a head is not a melon!- much less a strapped down 1. This was 1of the reasons I could not even grant the schlock film Saving Private Ryan props for realism, the way many ofthat film's detractors did. Simply because it was no more realistic than anyother film- just more graphic. The point is TS is not a not exactly a crackpot- yet POVs likehis are blithely dismissed based on the preconceptions of the antis, not sound& well-thought out rebuttals. I've experienced this in the literary worldwhere I have always shot down false claims against me, & proven their fallacy- see my takes on Jack Foley, plagiarism, & the Web Del Sol idiots.

Yet, anti-conspiracistshold up far more dubious science in support of their claims. As example, toagain use the ABC special, Dale Myers' computer simulation, lengthily lauded& discussed in detail by DM, himself, on his website http://www.jfkfiles.com/.Aside from his detractors' admittedly, at times, manifestly envious & adhominem claims, there are many problems with the simulation. 1^st is the old nostrum about computers-GIGO. Garbage in, garbage out. Any simulation is bound by the information itreceives- flawed information produces flawed results, & it should be notedthat the ABC special highlighted not only DM's simulation, but Walter Alvarez's'jet effect' theory, & the simulation's reliance on both that theory &other disputed facts in the case. For 1, the simulation attempts to prove thatearlier models of where JFK & Governor Connally were were flawed- the JFK film example. DM claims that theGovernor was seated further into the car, & lower than JFK- this is used asproof, via the simulation, that the 'Magic Bullet' could work. Putting aside myearlier statement that that was not the kill shot & not nearly as importantas to the murder as to the alleged conspiracy, the point remains that theZapruder film is a grainy, & not always clear, 2-D object, which compressesthings to the foreground & necessarily calls for approximations &wiggle room- not perfected certitude, & that there is a plenum of photos onother websites which purport to show, from other angles, Connally leaning left& in toward the car & JFK leaning right, out over the side of the car.Here, the lining up of the men is as DM claims, BUT the Zapruder film clearlyshows both men in relatively normal sitting positions, & misaligned to fitthe Magic Bullet. Yet, this theory is given priority over, say, TS's impressivedebunking of the 'jet effect', which plays a large part in the computersimulation.

As for DM's site- it isvisually impressive & far too complex for me to reproduce, although- agreeor not- it is 1 of the better JFK sites out there, even though it leans far toomuch on impressive sounding words, while being a bit short on the actual factspresented. Let me give some snippets from a website that debunks the'irrefutable' simulation in much more detail. But before I do let me admit, Iam a writer & I am as guilty of many of the narrative techniques topersuade you I am correct as any of these online authors are. I have presenteda bit more of the pro-conspiracists' POVs than the antis for a simple reason- Ifeel their arguments are more coherent than the mainstream media portrays,& they are the underdogs vs. the behemoth might of various media outlets.Yet, I will go far more in to depth about narrative techniques when I tacklethe UFO Alien Abduction portion of this essay, especially that relating toTerry Matheson's AlienAbductions book. Natheless,the aforementioned debunker's site http://www.john-f-ke...information.htm & snippets from it:

ABC'sSimulation: Spectacular Disinformation by Jim Fetzer

….The study supports the official Warren Commission conclusion that Lee Oswald acted alone. According to one release, Dale Myers, an award-winning animator, has spent the past decade creating a computer-generated reconstruction of the assassination based upon maps, blueprints, physical measurements, more than 500 photographs, theZapruder film, and the official autopsy report.

….According to the program's executive producer, Tom Yellin, "It leaves no room fordoubt!" He calls the results of ABC's study "enormously powerful.It's irrefutable." Yellin's declarations, however, leave some room fordoubt and raise the suspicion that this broadcast may actually be an exercisein disinformation on a spectacular scale.

Even in pure mathematics,proofs are only irrefutable relative to an assumed set of assumptions. That theinterior angles of a triangle equal 180 degrees, for example, is true in planegeometry but not in spherical or in hyperbolic. That this program, whichvindicates The Warren Report (1964), is not "irrefutable" is easy todemonstrate. There were at least two shots from the front-one of which hitJack's neck, the other his right temple-and a shot from behind hit his backabout 5 1/2 inches below the collar.

Of course,the writer now claims disputed facts as undisputed much in the manner of ABC toits computer simulation- see how difficult objectivity is. He then flails a bitmore, almost fulminating, before getting to the essence:

So what's going on here?GI/GO, "garbage in/garbage out", is an axiom of computerscience….Such a reconstruction has to assume that the Zapruder film isauthentic, that the autopsy report is correct, and all the rest--hook, line,and sinker.

Any computer reconstructionmust be based upon assumptions and data. What data did Dale Myers assume aboutthe location of the limousine, the position of the President's body, and thetrajectories based upon the wounds? The limo's location is clearly up forgrabs, especially because of uncertainty about when shots were even fired. Sowhen were the shots fired, according to Myers?….Any computerized reconstructionmust be based upon a reconstruction. The foundation for this fantasy is takingThe Warren Report itself as the basis for this simulation. It then becomespainfully apparent why this computerized simulation matches The Warren Report:it takes The Warren Report for granted!

Despitemuch non-cogent & silly fulminating, there are real points to consider, asselected above. & the statement that if you build a reconstruction basedupon certain information you will get results that match is logic- they key isputting in correct results- 1 cannot use a computer to determine if somethingis true, if the information is not consistent with known facts. …..

The article is much longer. To read the rest, go here:

http://webcache.goog...=www.google.com

Edited June 7, 2011 by William Kelly