Back and to the left, back and to the left...

[Paul Baker]

Hi,

I've just watched 3 Shots That Changed America. A superb film, for those who haven't seen it. A superb film for those who have seen it. It doesn't tow any particular line.

In the second part, there is a clip of the first showing of the Zapruder film, on Goodnight America in 1975.

We all know what happened to JFK following the headshot; he moved violently backwards, and to the left. Now, anyone who has no understanding of the basic laws of physics (possibly having watched too many films), will assume, as Robert Groden did on that broadcast, that this demonstrates a shot from the front (later in the film, Robert Groden repeated this fallacy during the HSCA meetings: 'Entirely consistent with a shot from the front,' he said).

I wondered then if it was possible for everyone here to agree on one thing, that the movement of JFK following the headshot does not prove that he was shot from the front.

Paul.

Edited April 2, 2012 by Paul Baker

[Paul Baker]

If Dr. G. Paul Chambers, a NASA physicist, believes that if you fire a small, high velocity projectile at a person, that person will move violently in the same directon, then yes, he has no understanding of the basic laws of physics.

Martin, have you ever heard of a bloke called Newton? He worked this out about 300 years ago.

The question stands. Is it possible for everyone to agree that the movement of JFK following the headshot does not prove that he was shot from the front?

Edited April 2, 2012 by Paul Baker

[Pamela Brown]

Hi,

I've just watched 3 Shots That Changed America. A superb film, for those who haven't seen it. A superb film for those who have seen it. It doesn't tow any particular line.

In the second part, there is a clip of the first showing of the Zapruder film, on Goodnight America in 1975.

We all know what happened to JFK following the headshot; he moved violently backwards, and to the left. Now, anyone who has no understanding of the basic laws of physics (possibly having watched too many films), will assume, as Robert Groden did on that broadcast, that this demonstrates a shot from the front (later in the film, Robert Groden repeated this fallacy during the HSCA meetings: 'Entirely consistent with a shot from the front,' he said).

I wondered then if it was possible for everyone here to agree on one thing, that the movement of JFK following the headshot does not prove that he was shot from the front.

Paul.

That's your opinion. You are entitled.

What difference does it make what others think?

You have done little to demonstrate your position as yet except to call on a fallacy called appeal to authority (that you have an understanding of physics whereas Groden and anyone who agrees with him do not).

Edited April 2, 2012 by Pamela Brown

[Guest Robert Morrow]

Here is Paul Chambers' book "Head Shot: The Science Behind the JFK Assassination"

http://www.amazon.com/Head-Shot-Science-Behind-Assassination/dp/1616145617/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1333380732&sr=8-1

JFK's dramatic "back and to the left" movement of his body does not prove that the head kill shot came from the front.

It just means there is a 99% chance that it did. The authories knew this in real time in 1963. But since the murderers were running the non-investigation/cover up of the JFK assassination it was not explored because any investigation of a "conspiracy" would lead to THEM.

"After more than four decades and scores of books, documentaries, and films on the subject, what more can be said about the assassination of President John F. Kennedy? A great deal, according to physicist and ballistics expert Dr. G. Paul Chambers.

In this provocative, rigorously researched book, Chambers presents evidence and compelling arguments that will make you rethink the entire sequence of terrible events on that traumatic day in Dallas.

Drawing on his fifteen years of experience as an experimental physicist for the US Navy, Chambers demonstrates that the commonly accepted view of the assassination is fundamentally flawed from a scientific perspective. The physics behind lone-gunmen theories is not only wrong, says Chambers, but frankly impossible.

Head Shot is the first book to:

identify the second murder weapon,

prove the locations of the assassins, and

demonstrate multiple shooters with scientific certainty.

Chambers concludes with a persuasive chapter on why this horrible event, now almost half a century old, should still matter to us today. Originally published as a hardcover in 2010, this paperback edition contains a new preface and postscript in which Chambers addresses some interesting developments since the book was first published as well as the upcoming fiftieth anniversary of the assassination.

For anyone seeking a fresh understanding of the JFK assassination, Head Shot is an indispensable book."

"Head Shot presents a unique and fascinating correlation of history and science with the government's investigation of the assassination of President Kennedy. Warren Commission critics may disagree with the specifics of G. Paul Chambers's reconstruction of this tragic event, but everyone who rejects the 'sole assassin--single bullet theory' will better understand why JFK's murder was a conspiracy involving multiple shooters after reading this intellectually stimulating and highly erudite book." --Cyril H. Wecht, MD, JD, past president, American Academy of Forensic Sciences and past president, American College of Legal Medicine

"As a career physicist in the national security sector, G. Paul Chambers is a uniquely qualified guide to the assassination of President John F. Kennedy. Instead of theorizing or demonizing, he offers a fascinating defense of the scientific method through history and applies that method to the oft-distorted JFK forensic evidence. He dismantles the bad science at the core of Vincent Bugliosi's flabby Reclaiming History and politely punts the fantasy that the Zapruder film was altered. What remains, he reveals, is a body of scientific evidence about JFK's murder that is increasingly consistent, self-authenticating, verifiable, and definitive." --Jefferson Morley, author of Our Man in Mexico: Winston Scott and the Hidden History of the CIA

"In Head Shot, G. Paul Chambers offers an original and scientifically credible account of the JFK assassination. He presents new material proving the existence of more than one assassin. It is an important contribution to the continuing controversy over this important event in American history." --Michael L. Kurtz, professor of history (ret.), Southeastern Louisiana University

Edited April 2, 2012 by Robert Morrow

[Paul Baker]

Fascinating. Simple question, stupid answers.

Anyone who's been to school care to contribute?

Edited April 2, 2012 by Paul Baker

[David Josephs]

Fascinating. Simple question, stupid answers.

Anyone who's been to school care to contribute?

Anyone past the 3rd grade can see that ONLY a shot from the right will push someone left...

That a shot from behind... pushes someone forward

and that a shot from the front, will push a person backward.

Most will tell you a FMJ bullet would have gone clean thru and thru... no exploding skull

The 6th floor TSBD window was almost in direct line with JFK... HE WAS LOOKING TO HIS LEFT...

A shot from high and behind WILL NOT move him back and to the left... Will NOT push him to his left,

Will NOT shoot brain matter all over Hargis and Martin

will NOT push a skull piece back and to the left to land at Brehm's feet

will NOT give the impression to altgens that matter came out the left side of his skull

and finally will not give the MANY MANY people who were there, saw him get hit as well as the doctors prior to the government stealing the body

the impression that he was shot anywhere but in the right temple...

That you need a physicist to explain common sense is most puzzling... If this was any other shooting, right front would have been a conclusion

not a cause for excuses and confusion

Edited April 2, 2012 by David Josephs

[Rodney Rivers]

Mr.Baker - analyze the experiment below and see where most of the blowback occurs from a bullet from the front exiting to the back.

Edited April 2, 2012 by Rodney Rivers

[B. A. Copeland]

We're actually arguing logic and basic, basic physics now lol...? My word, the things the PTB will have people arguing over for the next 5 or so decades truly, truly amazes me. JFK head snaps back/left = projectile hitting JFK originated front/right (with more than 90% certainty that it was at the very least from the front). I have every scientific and logical reason to believe that period (I did not even consider eyewitness testimony). Onward and upward.

[Pat Speer]

Hi,

I've just watched 3 Shots That Changed America. A superb film, for those who haven't seen it. A superb film for those who have seen it. It doesn't tow any particular line.

In the second part, there is a clip of the first showing of the Zapruder film, on Goodnight America in 1975.

We all know what happened to JFK following the headshot; he moved violently backwards, and to the left. Now, anyone who has no understanding of the basic laws of physics (possibly having watched too many films), will assume, as Robert Groden did on that broadcast, that this demonstrates a shot from the front (later in the film, Robert Groden repeated this fallacy during the HSCA meetings: 'Entirely consistent with a shot from the front,' he said).

I wondered then if it was possible for everyone here to agree on one thing, that the movement of JFK following the headshot does not prove that he was shot from the front.

Paul.

I agree that it doesn't show he was shot from the front. A shot from behind impacting at the supposed exit location--where all the eyewitnesses thought it impacted--would cause the same reaction.

[Paul Baker]

The high contrast picture of Z313 which shows a cloud of blood and brain matter in front of Kennedy's head proves nothing either, I suppose.

I'm not sure why I've been accused of trolling. This is a fair question, based on perfectly simple and well understood concept, yet most conspiracy theorists don't agree with it. No suprises there, but I do find that fascinating. It says a lot about the general mindset of those who tow the conspiracy line, that there are a majority who are prepared to dismiss a simple, unassailable truth. As far as they are concerned, the laws of physics don't apply to the assassination.

So I wonder what the motivation is of someone who dismisses reality. I think in many cases this can be accounted for by plain ol' stupidity. But I would like to know, how does someone like DiEugenio work? He doesn't sound too deranged (execpt perhaps when he's laughing). Yet he's proved yet again (above) that he cannot address a fundamental question about a subject he claims to be an authority on. He and many others can't even tell when he's received an ass-whipping from McAdams on Black Op Radio! I still enjoy listening to him fail to answer John's final question.

Of course, if we put DiEugenio in the limo in place of JFK, we wouldn't be having this debate, as his head would just deflate.

The Z-film is a complete fabrication in any case. I wonder if the assassination happened at all. Perhaps it just exists in our collective imaginations.

Edited April 3, 2012 by Paul Baker

[Glenn Viklund]

Case in point:

(Horrific video, don't watch this if you cant stand these things...)

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2390091327094425662

Executed from point blank range, with a Smith and Wesson 0.38.

According to the logic's of some postings above, this is an illusion? If not, I'd be very interested in the explanation as to why this guys head doesn't move at all when shot.

[Paul Baker]

According to the logic's of some postings above, this is an illusion? If not, I'd be very interested in the explanation as to why this guys head doesn't move at all when shot.

Bullets are designed to penetrate. They're also very small and very fast. So the fast moving projectile imparts hardly any of its movement to the comparatively large, heavy stationary head.

Even if the bullet imparted all of its momentum to the head (an elastic collision), I'm not sure whether you could call the resulting head movement violent. With a bullet weighing 10g moving at 500m/s hitting a stationary head weighing 5kg, the velocity imparted to the head will be 1m/s (one metre per second). In reality this will never happen; 1m/s represents a maximum theoretical value.

[Glenn Viklund]

According to the logic's of some postings above, this is an illusion? If not, I'd be very interested in the explanation as to why this guys head doesn't move at all when shot.

Bullets are designed to penetrate. They're also very small and very fast. So the fast moving projectile imparts hardly any of its movement to the comparatively large, heavy stationary head.

Even if the bullet imparted all of its momentum to the head (an elastic collision), I'm not sure whether you could call the resulting head movement violent. With a bullet weighing 10g moving at 500m/s hitting a stationary head weighing 5kg, the velocity imparted to the head will be 1m/s (one metre per second). In reality this will never happen; 1m/s represents a maximum theoretical value.

Paul,

Perhaps you misunderstood what I wrote (or perhaps I expressed myself poorly); the question was aimed for those who have an opinion contrary to yours.

//GV

[Paul Baker]

No, I got that. I just thought you were interested in an explanation, of sorts ...

Those who think his head moved back and to the left because of a shot from the right front certainly need one.

[Glenn Viklund]

No, I got that. I just thought you were interested in an explanation, of sorts ...

Those who think his head moved back and to the left because of a shot from the right front certainly need one.

You know Paul, I read somewhere a few years back that on average, 3.8 murders per night are shown on American Television. It wouldn't be too surprising to find that the Hollywood version of what a shooting looks like have had some influence on certain people's minds.

Edited April 3, 2012 by Glenn Viklund