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

[Glenn Viklund]

Here's the question, once again:

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

Jimbo is doing his best to avoid the obvious question:

Is the scenario with an absolutely non-moving head applicable to the JFK head shot?

Jimbo, who's afraid to discuss this matter should promptly go elsewhere and stop whining about mine or Paul's questions.

Edited April 4, 2012 by Glenn Viklund

[Glenn Viklund]

If you read what others have written, it is what I said at the end, a false analogy.

One which no one but you could pass of as a valid one.

And people have posted much more valid ones. But GIl has an even more valid one that that.

The fact that you refuse to acknowledge that fact explains why I find it worthless to argue with you.

Why not respond to those interested in the topic. They are right there. But yet, you are obsessed with me. Why, because I took you to the wood shed before?

And saying this was Baker's thread is revealing. See, i replied to each of his points and now he is gone. But you are still here. And both you and he mentioned my name specifically.

He made no mention of this issue in his post. Which I replied to.

And please do not tell me to EDIT. Did someone make you dictator without telling us? I thought this was Simkin's forum.

I will post where I wish to. To who I wish to. About what I wish to. Ok Stalin?

Now please take my advice with your little invalid Lattimer ladder parallel. OK?

BTW, have you ever done research on the experiments the WC did with this? Others have. Those experiments were much more valid than this one you picked out. I find it strange that you would choose one which is so obviously not the same over the ones the WC did. But I think I know why.

Ask anyone here who actually is a serious researcher about those WC experiments. OK Ahab?

Fine.

As per usual you are death scared of what may come up. I don't care. Your positions are in abundance around here.

We've heard your standings. Period. Now EDIT, will ya?

Edited April 4, 2012 by Pat Speer
Abusive language

[Glenn Viklund]

Glenn... then deal with this please.

I am stating that his body did not move nearly as much as it was made out to be... and that his head moves an entire width for very good reason.

He was not THROWN back and to the left...

AHA, so now he was not shoved "Back and to left" after all?

He was leaning left, shot in the right front, his head moves back as described below and the body falls...

How is this inconsistent with a frontal shot (along with blood and gore that was sprayed back and left)

and how is this CONSISTENT with a shot from the rear?

You should also notice that there is no "back splatter" that propels the head anywhere... nor does the man fall INTO the shooter... but slightly away.

Add some mushrooming and a slight explosion and your snippet would show the same thing as what happened to JFK

You are avoiding the question I raised: Do bullets through the head have the effect of moving the head in the direction of the bullet?

DJ

Okay Glenn... slowly this time and with feeling...

One is shot with a pistol at point blank range - the hole with blood fountaining out did NOT fragment on impact, did NOT blow a hole out the back of his head,

but DID enter his head in just about the same spot but in a different angle.

The OTHER SHOT... was fired at less than 2000fps (please see bullet fragmentation chart), MAY have been a fragmenting bullet based on the trail of particles left in the head,

and could have imparted much more force if expanding than the pistol shot

BUT WELL MORE IMPORTANT IS THE FACT that JFK did not move nearly as much as you are making it out to be...

The major movement was centered around his HEAD... since he was hit at the right, top, front we can at least agree that external stimuli to that part of the head would AT LEAST push his head up and back a bit....

JFK's head moves around the right shoulder... if the body FLEW BACK as you describe then the immediate motion would be in his entire torso... it is not...

His head moves, his arms go limp, and he falls to the left after his head is pushed back.. the bottom frame in my graphic is the farthest point to the rear he goes...

Very little motion at all compared to z312...

Yes, the head moves its entire width... but the rest of his body does what we see in that film... it simple falls based on gravity and motion ala Newton.

3.Third law: The mutual forces of action and reaction between two bodies are equal, opposite and collinear.

There is nothing we see in Z that contradicts this law, nor is there a HUGE backandtotheleft movement of his BODY...

and Glenn... I asked a question of you - show us any other FMJ bullet doing the damage shown in the xray...leaving a trail of vapor and micro sized particles..

surely in all of history this is not the ONLY TIME it ever happened...

you know, like the first time steel building(s) ever fell and disintegrated down due to fire... 3 times in the same day.

[Pat Speer]

Glenn, Jim, please stop abusing each other. This forum was designed as an education tool for young people.

[John Dolva]

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.

[plus read attachment in following post-ed]

I agree this can't be ignored.

We are fortunate to have someone like Al with us. Any student of physics can learn a lot from this post.

Al, have you done (is it possible?) a reverse analysis from how movements appear in the film in order to work out reasons why it did move as it did?

Do you consider the back brace a significant factor?

[Paul Baker]

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.

Thanks Jim, you always crack me up. 400 words which we could probably comfortably distil down to 10 without appreciable data loss.

And I haven't gone anywhere. I'm just in a different time zone.

I have heard of cavitation as it happens, Jim. I would be interested to know how it is relevant in the context of JFK's movement following the headshot, as I'm too dumb to work that out for myself. I would tend to believe that the presence of a cloud of blood and brain matter in front of JFK's head at frame Z313 would indicate that the bullet entered from behind. Otherwise, how is it being driven out of the front of his head, which Z313 clearly shows?

Oh, cavitation. I see.

So can your phenomenon of cavitation account for the solid fragments of bone which can be seen flying out at high speed in the same direction in the same frame? No doubt it can.

Jim, I think your version of your debate with John McAdams only exists inside your head. Listen to it, it's still there in the Black Op archive, and clear the fog:

Debate Part 1

Debate Part 2

Debate Part 3

Debate Part 4

You'll need RealPlayer for these.

Paul.

[Glenn Viklund]

Just a note.

This is not about Jim DiEugenio, David Josephs, Paul, me or anyone else. It's about finding out what happened at Dealey Plaza that day. We can bitch about this and that, and win a few battles, but in the end it's all about getting answers. In my view, this discussion about the head shot is just another matter that needs to be resolved. And in my view I think that the question I brought forward today, need to be properly answered.

//GV

Glenn, the movement of a head after being shot is related to how much of the bullet's energy is left in the head. A high-velocity bullet shooting straight through a head will impart very little energy to the head. The movement of the head will be negligible. A low velocity bullet, such as that fired from a handgun, would similarly cause very little movement. But a high-velocity bullet which fragments upon impact will impart far more energy to the head than normal, and cause far more movement than normal.

I have concluded that the bullet struck Kennedy at the supposed exit, from behind, and that this led to a reaction much like the reaction one would have to being slapped on the top of the head--the chin flies down and bounces back, and the elastic recoil of the neck muscles leads him to fall backwards.

Pat,

If I'm interpreting your suggestion correctly, in this case it would basically be impossible to determine the origin of the head shot based on JFK's movements as we see them in the Z-film?

And, that it's the neuro-muscular reflexes that are mainly the reason for those movements?

Is this a correct summation of your position?

[Paul Baker]

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.

The only shooter was seen, and heard, up in that sixth floor window of the TSBD (although, true to form, you maintain that no shots were fired from that window). Please, please don't bring up Jean Hill, Gordon Arnold or Ed Hoffman.

Most witnesses heard three shots. I'm not aware of a single contemporary news report that said there were more, and I've seen and heard quite a few of those.

The Zapruder film doesn't show a large and avulsed wound at the back of JFK's head.

Edited April 4, 2012 by Paul Baker

[John Dolva]

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.

Thanks Jim, you always crack me up. 400 words which we could probably comfortably distil down to 10 without appreciable data loss.

And I haven't gone anywhere. I'm just in a different time zone.

I have heard of cavitation as it happens, Jim. I would be interested to know how it is relevant in the context of JFK's movement following the headshot, as I'm too dumb to work that out for myself. I would tend to believe that the presence of a cloud of blood and brain matter in front of JFK's head at frame Z313 would indicate that the bullet entered from behind. Otherwise, how is it being driven out of the front of his head, which Z313 clearly shows?

Oh, cavitation. I see.

So can your phenomenon of cavitation account for the solid fragments of bone which can be seen flying out at high speed in the same direction in the same frame? No doubt it can.

Jim, I think your version of your debate with John McAdams only exists inside your head. Listen to it, it's still there in the Black Op archive, and clear the fog:

Debate Part 1

Debate Part 2

Debate Part 3

Debate Part 4

You'll need RealPlayer for these.

Paul.

I think that by triangulating the bones spinning off using Muchmore, Nix, and Zapruder one can see that the direction is roughly perpendicular to a front back shot.

[David Josephs]

"Please, please don't bring up Jean Hill, Gordon Arnold or Ed Hoffman"

There are 50 others who will tell us about the GK shooter... so that's fine.

"Contempory News Reports" told us three shots, three hits... JFK first, JC next, then JFK... books and articles published well into 1964 say the same thing.

Three seperate and distinct shots that each hit something... and yet.. there are RESULTS in DP that point to well more than just 3 shots... but you know that.

and here you go... avlused:

and the cover-up of said hole:

Glenn...

Let's please stay on the same page...k?

I am saying as well as providing the supporting evidence, that JFK's HEAD and arms move AFTER his brains are blown out...

In your little snippet... where is the blowing open of the skull? Blood shooting high into the air? A piece the size of HARPER blown off?

Did you SEE what Boswell says the head looked like? From one FMJ bullet??

All you showed us was a small calibre hole at point blank range from a handgun with nowhere NEAR the velocity or the ammo type...

But other than that your snippet is a perfect example of the JFK headshot...

From all I've read, what happens when a bullet strikes is close to impossible to determine other than

Small hole in - LARGE hole out... and that in a vehicle moving forward, and a person going from alive to dead...

the person will fall AWAY from the shot and opposite from the movement of the vehicle based on gravity and the laws of motion.

Back and to the LEFT... the bullet is only one small piece of the equation to determine JFK's movements... look at my graphic again... his right shoulder barely moves..

Tell you what... take your snippet, and at the moment he is shot, have someone push on his chest, just a small push, right after the shot...

wanna guess which direction he's gonna fall?

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.

The only shooter was seen, and heard, up in that sixth floor window of the TSBD (although, true to form, you maintain that no shots were fired from that window). Please, please don't bring up Jean Hill, Gordon Arnold or Ed Hoffman.

Most witnesses heard three shots. I'm not aware of a single contemporary news report that said there were more, and I've seen and heard quite a few of those.

The Zapruder film doesn't show a large and avulsed wound at the back of JFK's head.

[Paul Baker]

"Please, please don't bring up Jean Hill, Gordon Arnold or Ed Hoffman"

There are 50 others who will tell us about the GK shooter... so that's fine.

"Contempory News Reports" told us three shots, three hits... JFK first, JC next, then JFK... books and articles published well into 1964 say the same thing.

Three seperate and distinct shots that each hit something... and yet.. there are RESULTS in DP that point to well more than just 3 shots... but you know that.

and here you go... avlused:

David,

What are you talking about?

Are there fifty witnesses that saw a shooter on the Grassy Knoll?

No.

Are there are RESULTS in DP that point to well more than just 3 shots?

Who knows? That's just jibberish.

Does your image show an avulsed wound at the back of JFK's head?

No.

Would you consider dabbling with reality for a while, David?

Probably not.

Paul.

Edited April 5, 2012 by Paul Baker

[Glenn Viklund]

Glenn...

Let's please stay on the same page...k?

I am saying as well as providing the supporting evidence, that JFK's HEAD and arms move AFTER his brains are blown out...In your little snippet... where is the blowing open of the skull? Blood shooting high into the air? A piece the size of HARPER blown off?

None of this explains the difference shown in the two snippets, the Z-film and the VC soldier. Why is there no head move in my snippet?

You are circling the question, but you have not explained it. Physical laws tells us that we should not expect the head to move as the result of a bullet passing through. Which is exactly what we see in the little snippet I provided, right?

Did you SEE what Boswell says the head looked like? From one FMJ bullet??

All you showed us was a small calibre hole at point blank range from a handgun with nowhere NEAR the velocity or the ammo type...

Yes, do you know the muzzle velocity of the S&W 38? It should be roughly half of that from the Mannlicher Carcano. If this is why we should not expect the VC-guy's head to move, you are more than welcome to explain this.

But other than that your snippet is a perfect example of the JFK headshot...

From all I've read, what happens when a bullet strikes is close to impossible to determine other than

Small hole in - LARGE hole out... and that in a vehicle moving forward, and a person going from alive to dead...

the person will fall AWAY from the shot and opposite from the movement of the vehicle based on gravity and the laws of motion.

Back and to the LEFT... the bullet is only one small piece of the equation to determine JFK's movements... look at my graphic again... his right shoulder barely moves..

Tell you what... take your snippet, and at the moment he is shot, have someone push on his chest, just a small push, right after the shot...wanna guess which direction he's gonna fall?

None of this explains anything of what I asked for. You know David, It's fine with me that you regard this stuff as sufficient evidence about this, but please don't expect me to do that.

I'm simply asking a question, to which there are so far no answers. Let's narrow it down, forget about President Kennedy for a moment and explain the sequence displayed in the VC-snippet? Why no head movement?

[Glenn Viklund]

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

Glenn,

One possibility that is often overlooked is how JFK's nonfatal wound may have contributed to his exagerated rearward/leftward motion.

The bullet that entered Kennedy's back had to intercept the nervous fibers and tissues of the spinal cord and did, in fact, cause a fracture of the transverse process of the 1st thoracic vertebrae (T1). The medical literature is clear that a strike anywhere along the spinal chord can cause paralysis to the parts of the body below the injury.

An injury between T1 and T8 most commonly affects the use of the hands but may also result in poor trunk control as the result of a lack of abdominal control. A number of researchers have noted that, following the nonfatal strike, JFK does indeed appear to be suffering some type of paralysis. If that is the case, it may explain why he was more susceptible to the force striking his right temple.

Martin,

I believe I've seen this suggestion before. And, admittedly as a layman in medicine, it's difficult to evaluate this. But wouldn't this support exactly what I'm saying - that we should expect no head movement on a human as the result of a bullet passing through? Irrelevant of the origin of the bullet, where it came from?

[Cliff Varnell]

One possibility that is often overlooked is how JFK's nonfatal wound may have contributed to his exagerated rearward/leftward motion.

What makes you so sure the back wound was "non-fatal"? The autopsists considered it a possibility that JFK was hit with a non-conventional round, and spurred to FBI guys at the autopsy to call the FBI lab to inquire as to the existence of such weaponry.

Indeed: http://karws.gso.uri.edu/Marsh/New_Scans/flechette.txt

The bullet that entered Kennedy's back had to intercept the nervous fibers and tissues of the spinal cord and did, in fact, cause a fracture of the transverse process of the 1st thoracic vertebrae (T1).

I expect this from McAdams/Bugliosi supporters who don't have any choice but to promote a high back wound, but to see self-declared "CTs" peddle this rubbish is sad.

The hairline fracture of the right t1 transverse process was a result of the throat shot.

We have physical evidence of the T3 back wound -- the bullet holes in JFK's shirt and jacket more than 2 inches below the McAdams/Bugliosi/Speer/Hay fantasy T1 location.

We have consensus statements/testimony of at least 15 witnesses to a wound consistent with T3.

We have properly prepared medical evidence -- signed off as "verified" -- of the low T3 back wound.

But folks like Pat Speer and Martin Hay (as well as Bugliosi/McAdams) would have us believe that all the witnesses suffered the same misperception, that improperly prepared medical evidence like the Fox 5 autopsy photo and the autopsy report (which lists two separate locations for the same wound) trump properly prepared documents like the autopsy face sheet and Burkley's death certificate, and that JFK's custom clothing moved in a manner contrary to the nature of reality given JFK's casual movements in the limo.

When are you guys ever going to show how casual movements cause multiple inches of fabric to move?

Answer: never.

How you guys can push this T1 garbage is beyond me. Paul Baker doesn't have any choice but to misrepresent the evidence, or else he can't be an LNer. What's your excuse, Martin?

Edited April 5, 2012 by Cliff Varnell

[David Josephs]

You aint gonna learn what you dont wanna know Glenn...

And you simply do not want to know that your snippet and the JFK shot have nothing whatsoever to do with each other...

But if you want to continue to make your point with non sequitur... and then build your case with your hands over your ears/mouth/eyes

have at it.

I explained the differences... the man in your snippet does not move since the bullet only contacts a very small portion of the man's skull and is thru without an explosion of the skull.

A better question is why are you using an example of a shot that does not blow chunks of skull from the victim?

Newton then is correct since you snippet does not allow for anough mass to push thru the skull to move the man...

Now, if you were to try a hollow-point bullet that mushrooms and/or fragments as it tunnels so that much more surface area is affected...

you get something resembling the JFK shot...

And why do you not acknowledge the real extent of the motion... In your snippet the man falls to the ground... does the bullet do this or is this the result of gravity on a dead person?

JFK's head moves because the bullet hits the top right front... His shoulders barely move at all...

He falls to the left FROM GRAVITY.... just like your snippet

He falls to BACK due to the limo moving and again, GRAVITY and the fact the shot came from the right... not behind... if from behind, in the way he was sitting, he would have fallen to his right..

but again..

If you dont want to open yourself to possibilities to answer your question then it seems you simply have an agewnda that does not include finding or discussing answers

and only includes your POV... which again is fine... but then don't keep asking the same question hoping for a different answer...

DJ

Glenn...

Let's please stay on the same page...k?

I am saying as well as providing the supporting evidence, that JFK's HEAD and arms move AFTER his brains are blown out...In your little snippet... where is the blowing open of the skull? Blood shooting high into the air? A piece the size of HARPER blown off?

None of this explains the difference shown in the two snippets, the Z-film and the VC soldier. Why is there no head move in my snippet?

You are circling the question, but you have not explained it. Physical laws tells us that we should not expect the head to move as the result of a bullet passing through. Which is exactly what we see in the little snippet I provided, right?

Did you SEE what Boswell says the head looked like? From one FMJ bullet??

All you showed us was a small calibre hole at point blank range from a handgun with nowhere NEAR the velocity or the ammo type...

Yes, do you know the muzzle velocity of the S&W 38? It should be roughly half of that from the Mannlicher Carcano. If this is why we should not expect the VC-guy's head to move, you are more than welcome to explain this.

But other than that your snippet is a perfect example of the JFK headshot...

From all I've read, what happens when a bullet strikes is close to impossible to determine other than

Small hole in - LARGE hole out... and that in a vehicle moving forward, and a person going from alive to dead...

the person will fall AWAY from the shot and opposite from the movement of the vehicle based on gravity and the laws of motion.

Back and to the LEFT... the bullet is only one small piece of the equation to determine JFK's movements... look at my graphic again... his right shoulder barely moves..

Tell you what... take your snippet, and at the moment he is shot, have someone push on his chest, just a small push, right after the shot...wanna guess which direction he's gonna fall?

None of this explains anything of what I asked for. You know David, It's fine with me that you regard this stuff as sufficient evidence about this, but please don't expect me to do that.

I'm simply asking a question, to which there are so far no answers. Let's narrow it down, forget about President Kennedy for a moment and explain the sequence displayed in the VC-snippet? Why no head movement?