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

[Paul Baker]

You know Paul, I read somewhere a few years back that on average, 3.8 murders per night is 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.

I'm certain that this is the case, and why it was never questioned when Robert Groden asserted that the head movement showed a bullet from the right front. Most people think that's what happens. In Hollywood, shot bodies can fly across a room in the direction of the bullet sometimes!

I'm also pretty sure that 99% of the people watching Goodnight America instantly believed that someone shot JFK from the front after seeing the Z film for the first time.

They should look out of the window instead of watching TV, maybe they'll see a real murder or two

Edited April 3, 2012 by Paul Baker

[David Andrews]

In the early 1970s, when Mark Lane was showing the Z-film on college campuses to stimulate discussion of a frontal head shot, there were fewer violent images in movies to equate JFK's motions with.

If anything, 1970s exposure to Zapruder brought more graphic violence to films.

[John Dolva]

I can understand why you say that. This doesn't mean that there is a deeper perspective. But there could be.

eg - Live TV pioneered in the Kennedy years as well as the mobile radio news unit (from Dallas of all places). The Vietnam war sprung into everyones living room. for example, Kernt State, but then there is also the daily inter-social communications as well as a near Civil War at times over a number of years. A lot of this can be studied by watching ''The Killing of America, if you can get a copy. Is it still banned in the US?

[Cliff Varnell]

Fascinating. Simple question, stupid answers.

It's a stupid question based on the assumption JFK was struck only once in the head.

Given the reference to "apparent" pre-autopsy surgery to the head in the FBI report on the autopsy, I highly recommend that students new to the case avoid the subject of the head wound(s) entirely.

It's the Mother of All Rabbit Holes.

[Paul Baker]

It's a stupid question based on the assumption JFK was struck only once in the head.

Not much of an assumption, given that the sum total of credible evidence for a second (or third, etc.) shooter is ziltch.

Patronise me some more if it makes you happy.

[Al Fordiani]

I understand physics. I graduated MIT and have taught physics for 15 years.

The difficulty comes in deciding how to model the whole interaction.

Just for the sake of it, I did some quick calculations just to get a first-order approximation. To model JFK, I assumed that in reaction to a bullet to his head in front, that JFK's torso would rotate back at his waist with his lower body remaining motionless. I assumed a rifle bullet of 10 grams hitting with a velocity of 1000 meters/second.

The result is that one would see a backwards rotation of Kennedy's body about his waist of about 124 degrees per second. The linear speed of his head would be about 1.7 meters per second. (see attached calculations).

The calculation works in both directions, that is, that if a shot of similar parameter hit JFK in the back of the head, he would be rotated forward. (You would have to multiply the bullet angular momentum by the cosine of the downward angle, so the rotation would be less.) Now, there is no doubt that my model is a simplification, but the basic idea can't be ignored.

Mr. Viklund, I did a similar calculation based on the video you showed. Assuming a rigid rotation about his feet with a standard S&W round, that victim's rotation would be only 4 degrees per second. (I assumed 5' 6" 150 lb man, 10 gram round at 234 meters/second)

But regardless of what anyone thinks about the physics involved, Sibert and O'Neill's unequivocal testimony to the ARRB that the photos in evidence do not represent the head or brain of JFK as they saw them at autopsy is certain evidence of conspiracy.

Edited April 3, 2012 by Al Fordiani

[Al Fordiani]

Sorry,

Attachment

Kennedy Rotational motion.doc

[Cliff Varnell]

It's a stupid question based on the assumption JFK was struck only once in the head.

Not much of an assumption, given that the sum total of credible evidence for a second (or third, etc.) shooter is ziltch.

Patronise me some more if it makes you happy.

Mis-characterize the evidence all you want if it makes you happy.

Your assumptions add up to zilch.

[Glenn Viklund]

Fascinating. Simple question, stupid answers.

It's a stupid question based on the assumption JFK was struck only once in the head.

Given the reference to "apparent" pre-autopsy surgery to the head in the FBI report on the autopsy, I highly recommend that students new to the case avoid the subject of the head wound(s) entirely.

It's the Mother of All Rabbit Holes.

On the other hand Cliff, there is not much in the way of evidence you reference to, is there?

[Mark Knight]

If the bullet at Z-313 had passed though soft tissue and not struck bone, one could expect the body to simply go limp as the muscles relaxed. If the vehicle had stopped at that moment, it is just as likely that JFK would've fallen forward as backward. Knowing that the vehicle was moving forward at that moment, then it would not be unusual that the body would've tended to move slightly rearward...no matter which direction the bullet had come from. Or if the vehicle had slowed radically, or even stopped at the time of the shot, inertia would've carried the limp body forward.

But the skull is bone...and some of the energy of the bullet is transferred to the bone. Then the question becomes, how much of the energy of the bullet is transferred to the bone. Those who contend there was definitely a shot from the front suggest that sufficient energy was transferred to the skull as to drive the entire body backward [yes, and to the left]. Those who contend the only shot [or shots] came from the rear seem to be saying that while the energy transferred to the skull WAS sufficient to fracture and shatter the skull, it was NOT sufficient to drive the skull forward a significant amount...and that the "back and to the left" is merely the effect of a forward-moving car on a suddenly-limp body.

Now...is that a good summary of the different positions? Or am I missing something here?

[Cliff Varnell]

Fascinating. Simple question, stupid answers.

It's a stupid question based on the assumption JFK was struck only once in the head.

Given the reference to "apparent" pre-autopsy surgery to the head in the FBI report on the autopsy, I highly recommend that students new to the case avoid the subject of the head wound(s) entirely.

It's the Mother of All Rabbit Holes.

On the other hand Cliff, there is not much in the way of evidence you reference to, is there?

I made reference to the FBI report on the autopsy. That doesn't qualify as evidence...why?

[Glenn Viklund]

Uh Paul?

Ever hear of the phenomenon of cavitation?

I didn't think so.

Among other people, Milicent Cranor talks about this in more than one of her writings. You probably don't read them since you are too busy trolling for outdated info at McAdams' disinfo site.

This point you brought up is about as old as the hills. To only you would it be new. Since you are not exactly the sharpest tack in the drawer. In fact, you are about as sophisticated as your soulmate Viklund.

As per the no evidence of two shots nuttiness, Gad you cannot be serious can you? But the thing is, I actually think you are. Maybe you can find a way to dismiss all those witnesses who saw a rather large and avulsed wound at the back of JFK's head? Or the stuff flying across the trunk of the car which Jackie was reaching for. I have absolutely no doubt that, with your affliction of McAdams' DIsease, you can do this. And that affliction allows you to also dismiss the Robinson testimony about the small hole in the right front of JFK's head.

See Paul, entrance wounds leave small penetrating holes. Exit wounds are usually much larger. This is JFK 101, which you flunked.

As per my debate with McAdams, and his alleged victory--you are distorting history as much as Viklund did with my debate with Kevin G, who is nowhere to be found anymore. If what you depicted were correct, the nutty professor would not have contacted me at the end of both go rounds, complaining about 1.) Where i got such and such info that he was not aware of, and 2.) That I had somehow mistaken the first edition for the second edition of the Kurtz book. When in fact, this was irrelevant concerning my point about his lying about that book. Which he did. And in my summation, which he did not want to hear after I exposed him on this point as a fabricator--so he hung up-- I exposed about three other lies he had stated during the debate.

On the evidence adduced, that does not mean a damn thing to Baker. Which is the case if you have third degree McAdams' disease. Which he does.

Cavitation?

Jimbo, lets see your explanation of the obvious difference between the snippet I provided and your new version of Newton, shall we?

I am eagerly looking forward to your, once again, in depth explanation?

Edited April 3, 2012 by Glenn Viklund

[Glenn Viklund]

I understand physics. I graduated MIT and have taught physics for 15 years.

The difficulty comes in deciding how to model the whole interaction.

Just for the sake of it, I did some quick calculations just to get a first-order approximation. To model JFK, I assumed that in reaction to a bullet to his head in front, that JFK's torso would rotate back at his waist with his lower body remaining motionless. I assumed a rifle bullet of 10 grams hitting with a velocity of 1000 meters/second.

The result is that one would see a backwards rotation of Kennedy's body about his waist of about 124 degrees per second. The linear speed of his head would be about 1.7 meters per second. (see attached calculations).

The calculation works in both directions, that is, that if a shot of similar parameter hit JFK in the back of the head, he would be rotated forward. (You would have to multiply the bullet angular momentum by the cosine of the downward angle, so the rotation would be less.) Now, there is no doubt that my model is a simplification, but the basic idea can't be ignored.

Mr. Viklund, I did a similar calculation based on the video you showed. Assuming a rigid rotation about his feet with a standard S&W round, that victim's rotation would be only 4 degrees per second. (I assumed 5' 6" 150 lb man, 10 gram round at 234 meters/second)

But regardless of what anyone thinks about the physics involved, Sibert and O'Neill's enequivical testimony to the ARRB that the photos in evidence do not represent the head or brain of JFK as they saw them at autopsy is certain evidence of conspiracy.

I agree with you about Siberts testimony. No doubt strange things happened that night. This is an open wound.

[David Josephs]

So the handgun example was one of these bullets that fragmented and disintegrated THRU the man's head?

How does the track of particles and fragments MOVE UP above the line of either the WCR OR the HSCA entracne wounds?

and please provide ANY EXAMPLE ANY WHERE IN HISTORY where a FMJ bullet left a trail of micro-sized and normal sized fragments...

The speed to cause a FMJ bullet to fragment into IDENTIFIABLE pieces is much faster than the MC could fire...

The REAL question is how did the hole in the right rear happen if the frontal shot disintegrated into these fragments well above where the bullet exited... and the only thing I can come up with are from tests of holoow-point ammo... there is usually a large fragment of two that is left... and THIS would have caused the hole in the right rear while the rest of the bullet was either left all thru JFK's head or the extra with those fragments is NOT JFK...

DJ

"An expanding bullet is a bullet designed to expand on impact, increasing in diameter to limit penetration and/or produce a larger diameter wound. It is informally known as a Dum-dum or a dumdum bullet. The two typical designs are the hollow point bullet and the soft point bullet"

In essence, the hollow point bullet has several purposes: hollow points designed to expand increase in size once within the target, thus maximizing tissue damage and blood loss or shock, and to remain inside the target, thereby transferring all of its kinetic energy to that target (some fraction would remain in the bullet if it passed through instead). Jacketed hollow points (JHPs) or plated hollow points are covered in a coating of harder metal to increase bullet strength and to prevent fouling the barrel with lead stripped from the bullet. The term hollow-cavity bullet is used to describe a hollow point where the hollow is unusually large, sometimes dominating the volume of the bullet, and causes extreme expansion or fragmentation on impact.

Soft-point bullets are less common than hollow points, due to the slower expansion and greater penetration, but they fill roles that hollow points do not. In some cases the reduced expansion is desired, so that more penetration is achieved before the bullet begins the rapid deceleration caused by expansion. In other cases, the smooth, rounded profile typical of a soft-point bullet is preferred over the concave tip of a hollow point, because the latter tends to suffer failure to feed malfunctions in certain magazine-fed firearms. Many of the more modern magazine-fed firearms were expressly designed to feed hollow points reliably, but many older and military-derived designs were not. Many military firearms, especially pistols, were designed to fire only full metal jacket bullet (FMJ) ammunition, and will suffer failures to feed with hollow-point ammunition, leaving soft-point ammunition the best choice for non-military defensive purposes in these firearms. Military firearms are designed to use FMJ rounds because the Hague Convention prohibits nations which are signatory to the convention from using expanding bullets in warfare. However, this convention does not apply to individuals in non-warfare situations, such as law enforcement, personal defense and hunting.

Edited April 3, 2012 by David Josephs

[Glenn Viklund]

So the handgun example was one of these bullets that fragmented and disintegrated THRU the man's head?

How does the track of particles and fragments MOVE UP above the line of either the WCR OR the HSCA entracne wounds?

and please provide ANY EXAMPLE ANY WHERE IN HISTORY where a FMJ bullet left a trail of micro-sized and normal sized fragments...

The speed to cause a FMJ bullet to fragment into IDENTIFIABLE pieces is much faster than the MC could fire...

The REAL question is how did the hole in the right rear happen if the frontal shot disintegrated into these fragments well above where the bullet exited... and the only thing I can come up with are from tests of holoow-point ammo... there is usually a large fragment of two that is left... and THIS would have caused the hole in the right rear while the rest of the bullet was either left all thru JFK's head or the extra with those fragments is NOT JFK...

DJ

"An expanding bullet is a bullet designed to expand on impact, increasing in diameter to limit penetration and/or produce a larger diameter wound. It is informally known as a Dum-dum or a dumdum bullet. The two typical designs are the hollow point bullet and the soft point bullet"

In essence, the hollow point bullet has several purposes: hollow points designed to expand increase in size once within the target, thus maximizing tissue damage and blood loss or shock, and to remain inside the target, thereby transferring all of its kinetic energy to that target (some fraction would remain in the bullet if it passed through instead). Jacketed hollow points (JHPs) or plated hollow points are covered in a coating of harder metal to increase bullet strength and to prevent fouling the barrel with lead stripped from the bullet. The term hollow-cavity bullet is used to describe a hollow point where the hollow is unusually large, sometimes dominating the volume of the bullet, and causes extreme expansion or fragmentation on impact.

Soft-point bullets are less common than hollow points, due to the slower expansion and greater penetration, but they fill roles that hollow points do not. In some cases the reduced expansion is desired, so that more penetration is achieved before the bullet begins the rapid deceleration caused by expansion. In other cases, the smooth, rounded profile typical of a soft-point bullet is preferred over the concave tip of a hollow point, because the latter tends to suffer failure to feed malfunctions in certain magazine-fed firearms. Many of the more modern magazine-fed firearms were expressly designed to feed hollow points reliably, but many older and military-derived designs were not. Many military firearms, especially pistols, were designed to fire only full metal jacket bullet (FMJ) ammunition, and will suffer failures to feed with hollow-point ammunition, leaving soft-point ammunition the best choice for non-military defensive purposes in these firearms. Military firearms are designed to use FMJ rounds because the Hague Convention prohibits nations which are signatory to the convention from using expanding bullets in warfare. However, this convention does not apply to individuals in non-warfare situations, such as law enforcement, personal defense and hunting.

David,

I appreciate, as always, your very simplistic and not seldom, denigrating answers. But please, you will have to do better than that with your answers?

Once again: what makes my snippet different from Zapruder's, with regards to head movements?