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

[Cliff Varnell]

(yawn)

Another self-elected JFK expert caught with his facts down.

[Glenn Viklund]

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?

Fine David. It's your opinion that you have answered the question.

I'm not looking for a different answer. I'm simply looking for an answer and you have provided nothing if the sort, except a few home cooked suggestions. And above all, now you come up with even more: the bullet from the S&W leaves the muzzle with a velocity of 1250 ft/second - but of course in that case it's perfectly natural to se no reaction? And "the two have got nothing to do with each other"? No, of course not. Except, that is, a bullet piercing both heads.

Paul gave the answer early on in this thread. Once you show me why that is not applicable, then you're adding something to this discussion, apart from this usual CT spin of "having and agenda" and all the rest. And until then, thanks for your suggestions.

Edited April 5, 2012 by Glenn Viklund

[Pat Speer]

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?

I'll take your latest tirade as an opportunity to learn something. For years you've been making this same argument "properly prepared medical evidence trumps improperly prepared medical evidence." But have you EVER actually researched this? Have you ever found a case where an autopsy protocol signed by multiple doctors, including a forensic pathologist, and confirmed by the victim's personal physician, and autopsy photos subsequently confirmed as authentic by the doctors conducting the autopsy, have been rejected, due to their being in disagreement with the original death certificate prepared by the personal physician?

I would suspect not. But am prepared for you to AMAZE me.

Edited April 5, 2012 by Pat Speer

[Cliff Varnell]

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?[/b]

Isn't his head tilted away from the shooter in this photo?

[Glenn Viklund]

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?[/b]

Isn't his head tilted away from the shooter in this photo?

If there is, Cliff, it's certainly got to be miniscule. Because I don't detect one (And check the snippet, that's a better reference point).

But let's for the sake of argument say there is, then what is your take as to why it's so neglectable in comparison to JFK's head movement?

[Cliff Varnell]

I'll take your latest tirade as an opportunity to learn something. For years you've been making this same argument "properly prepared medical evidence trumps improperly prepared medical evidence."

It's simply a matter of common sense that properly prepared/handled evidence would trump evidence which was not properly prepared/handled, especially when the properly prepared evidence is corroborated by hard, measurable physical evidence, as well as overwhelming consensus witness observations.

But have you EVER actually researched this? Have you ever found a case where an autopsy protocol signed by multiple doctors, including a forensic pathologist,

Said pathologist, Col. Pierre Finck, disputed the validity of the back wound locations (plural) he signed off on in the autopsy report.

Before the ARRB Finck testified:

"JFK's spine, a fixed landmark, was the correct and only point of reference to determine the accurate location of this posterior wound."

What part of "correct and only" don't you grasp, Pat? Why don't you educate us with examples of autopsy reports that used anatomical landmarks other than the spine to locate a back wound?

Can you cite just one -- other than the JFK autopsy report, Pat?

I suspect you cannot.

and confirmed by the victim's personal physician, and autopsy photos subsequently confirmed as authentic by the doctors conducting the autopsy,

It may not have dawned on you just yet, Pat, given your relative new-ness to the case, that JFK was murdered by a conspiracy covered-up at the highest levels of the US government. The autopsists and JFK's personal physician were military men, and thus subject to coercive influence by military higher ups.

The earliest back wound descriptions by these military officers put the wound at T3, and these wound descriptions were signed off as "verified." Given the amount of witness coercion evident in this case, it should not surprise anyone that the later statements by these gentlemen were compromised.

The autopsy photos were not prepared properly, nor is there a chain of possession for them. You have no proof whatsoever that the figure in the Fox 5 autopsy photo is JFK. None.

have been rejected, due to their being in disagreement with the original death certificate prepared by the personal physician?

And, as usual, Pat Speer ignores the physical evidence and the witness statements and boils my argument down to the death certificate alone.

Your "special pleading" is egregious, Pat.

Now, let's get back on-topic, shall we?

Here's JFK at Z186 in the Betzner photo, sitting bolt upright:

Phil Willis said he took his fifth photo in a startle response to a gunshot. John Hunt prepared the following to show Willis 5 corrected to the horizon line, and it shows JFK leaning away from the direction of the shot.

Of course, the throat shot did not exit, and so transferred its momentum to JFK's neck area.

[Cliff Varnell]

If there is, Cliff, it's certainly got to be miniscule. Because I don't detect one (And check the snippet, that's a better reference point).

If you don't want to see the obvious tilt of his head, there's nothing I can do to make you, certainly.

And no, the film clip is not superior since the tilt happened so rapidly.

But let's for the sake of argument say there is, then what is your take as to why it's so neglectable in comparison to JFK's head movement?

Because it was a single shot from a handgun, as opposed to possible multiple shots including (possibly) a frangible round that transferred more momentum to the head.

Please see my previous post with the Betzner 3/Willis 5 comparison.

[Pat Speer]

I'll take your latest tirade as an opportunity to learn something. For years you've been making this same argument "properly prepared medical evidence trumps improperly prepared medical evidence."

It's simply a matter of common sense that properly prepared/handled evidence would trump evidence which was not properly prepared/handled, especially when the properly prepared evidence is corroborated by hard, measurable physical evidence, as well as overwhelming consensus witness observations.

In other words, NO, you have never bothered to find out if the death certificate signed by Burkley would "trump" the other evidence in a court of law. Your claim it is "common sense," moreover, is as much as an acknowledgment you suspect it would not.

This is not a thread on the back wound, and your attempt to turn it into one is incredibly sad, IMO.

Edited April 5, 2012 by Pat Speer

[B. A. Copeland]

I am not even sure that the VC victim's head did not snap to "our right" when viewing. It certainly did move. It also seems to have "popped" in the direction away from the weapon. I swear I thought this was all basic physics.

Secondly, I am not sure even using that as an example is too reliable (maybe it is depending on what you wish to prove but I am definitely no scientist). For a few reasons:

1) Weapon used (which affects the velocity of the round ejected from the particular weapon. VC = Handgun, JFK = More than likely a rifle of some kind which = more stopping power).

2) Rounds used.

3) Victim's movement/position (JFK was in a moving vehicle towards the apparent head wound shooter/s, VC was standing still)

These are just a few points.

Edited April 5, 2012 by B. A. Copeland

[Cliff Varnell]

I'll take your latest tirade as an opportunity to learn something. For years you've been making this same argument "properly prepared medical evidence trumps improperly prepared medical evidence."

It's simply a matter of common sense that properly prepared/handled evidence would trump evidence which was not properly prepared/handled, especially when the properly prepared evidence is corroborated by hard, measurable physical evidence, as well as overwhelming consensus witness observations.

In other words, NO, you have never bothered to find out if the death certificate signed by Burkley would "trump" the other evidence in a court of law.

And you have? Since the death certificate was filled out according to proper autopsy protocol (associating the wound with a vertebral level) and the final autopsy report was NOT filled out according to proper autopsy protocol

(using the scapula and the mastoid process as landmarks) -- it's really a no-brainer.

Your claim it is "common sense," moreover, is as much as an acknowledgment you suspect it would not.

Your rhetorical vapidity is so noted.

This is not a thread on the back wound, and your attempt to turn it into one is incredibly sad, IMO.

I didn't bring it up, Martin Hay did.

Your inability to argue your position on ANY of JFK's wounds is notorious.

[Cliff Varnell]

That's exactly why I didn't bother responding, Pat.

You have NO actual response, Martin, just a silly pet notion for which you cannot make a cogent argument, like McAdams and Bugliosi...and Speer.

I don't think anyone wants to see Cliff hijack yet another thread with his inane ramblings.

YOU brought the subject up, Martin. You think you can repeat these egregious absurdities and not be challenged?

Talk about inane!

btw, since repetition has value...

JFK at Z186, bolt up-right:

JFK at Z202 about a half second after the throat shot, leaning to his left:

Quite on-topic.