Count me among the sacrilegious, but I believe the throat wound may have been one of exit

[Jon G. Tidd]

JFK was killed by a bullet to the head?

Where did this bullet strike?

Please describe its path through the brain.

Please describe the damage done by this bullet.

Please describe the debris, if any, the bullet left in the brain.

I know, or think I know, JFK's skull was shattered. But I can only guess how it was shattered, because the autopsy was poor.

If I had a legitimate bet, I'd bet JFK was hit at least twice in the head.

If I had a legitimate bet, I'd bet no physician on planet Earth, today or yesterday, could say with precision what was the cause of JFK's death.

Truth is, it both matters and doesn't matter.

It matters because no one knows for sure.

It doesn't matter because JFK was shot dead in Dealey Plaza, and few care why.

[Ramon F. Herrera]

If I had a legitimate bet, I'd bet no physician on planet Earth, today or yesterday, could say with precision what was the cause of JFK's death.

We don't need that kind of precision, either. All we need to prove is that the fatal shot could not possibly have come from the back.

Also: we have no use for one Physicist. A multidisciplinary team is required. The study, modeling and simulation of brittle bones is completely different from the Dynamic of Fluids, and you would have to "couple" the studies.

The answer from each university to the question: "What was the likely cause of the sequence of violent movements?" would be something like:

- Harvard:

99% Shot from the Front

0.75% Neurological Spams

0.25% Jet Effect

- MIT

98% Shot from the Front

1.5% Jet Effect

0.5% Neurological Spasms

- CalTech

[etc]

- Stanford

[etc]

- UCLA

[etc.]

Note: I am being very generous to the other side, with those percentages.

-Ramon

Edited October 3, 2015 by Ramon F. Herrera

[Ramon F. Herrera]

If I had a legitimate bet, I'd bet JFK was hit at least twice in the head.

You know something ironic, Jon? The irony of ironies?

For years, we have been working for the other side.

Furthermore, since recently, the other side has been working for us.

I would like to warn and beg everybody who defends the dual shots to the head to reconsider.

Why? Because such scenario impossibilitates (*) the violent back snap.

Many on our side: Horne, Mantik and even my recently discovered doctor Riley, have been trying to throw everything and the kitchen sink, to see what sticks. That turned out to be the wrong approach, one that diminishes our credibility.

What we need here is Mr. Occam.

-Ramon

(*) Yes, I realize that in English such word does not exist, but it should.

Edited October 3, 2015 by Ramon F. Herrera

[Chris Newton]

We don't need that kind of precision, either. All we need to prove is that the fatal shot could not possibly have come from the back.

I think he was shot twice in the head, once from the rear, once from the right front. One more time from either right or left front in the throat and once in the back from the rear. John Connolly was shot twice, once in the back and once in the wrist both from the rear. Then there's at least one miss from the rear and possibly two with a second miss hitting the street.

If my addition is correct I have:

Front shots: 2

Rear shots: 5 or 6

If any came from the so called snipers nest they would be the miss to Tague's curb and/or the street.

Just my 2 cents.

Why? Because such scenario impossibilitates (*) the violent back snap.

Only if you are assuming the extant Zapruder film is intact and unaltered and the "violent" movement is not an artifact of editing.

[Robert Prudhomme]

Is impossibiltate a real word, Jon?

Seriously, though, there is another way to look at the head shot(s). It would seem that a shot from the front AND a shot from the rear are impossible, due to the apparent lack of movement of the head from the back shot, and the violent "back and to the left" movement from the front shot but, I believe, JFK's movements have been grossly misinterpreted. What I see, when I watch the Z film, is the shot from the front causing a very short, brief recoil of JFK's head, and the violent "back and to the left" movement is simply JFK's limp form falling over. I have seen this many times hunting deer.

[Tom Neal]

Why? Because such scenario impossibilitates (*) the violent back snap.

Only if you are assuming the extant Zapruder film is intact and unaltered and the "violent" movement is not an artifact of editing.

I think Chris is exactly correct here. This section of the film was almost certainly altered, and IMO this was done to remove evidence of two almost simultaneous shots.

Personally, I haven't decided *exactly* what was excised from the film at this point, but I'm convinced it does *not" represent reality. IMO there were 2 closely spaced headshots, one from the rear, and one from the front that impacted somewhat tangentially. i.e. The path of the bullet did not traverse the center point of JFK's head, it passed to the right of center with respect to JFK's body.

Tom

[Chris Newton]

Robert <welcome back!>,

I agree that could work.

We agree that JFK was shot in the back, I think. So we know there is at least one shooter to the rear.

In support of your theory above, most of the doctors at Parkland put a fist sized hole in the right rear of the skull. That hole seems more likely to be wound of exit than entrance. It would mean that the bullet deflected a little after impact. Entirely possible.

So how many shooters in your scenario?

-Chris

[Tom Neal]

Is impossibiltate a real word, Jon?

Bob,

Great to have you back!

Tom

[Ramon F. Herrera]

We don't need that kind of precision, either. All we need to prove is that the fatal shot could not possibly have come from the back.

I think he was shot twice in the head, once from the rear, once from the right front. One more time from either right or left front in the throat and once in the back from the rear. John Connolly was shot twice, once in the back and once in the wrist both from the rear. Then there's at least one miss from the rear and possibly two with a second miss hitting the street.

If my addition is correct I have:

Front shots: 2

Rear shots: 5 or 6

If any came from the so called snipers nest they would be the miss to Tague's curb and/or the street.

Just my 2 cents.

Why? Because such scenario impossibilitates (*) the violent back snap.

Only if you are assuming the extant Zapruder film is intact and unaltered and the "violent" movement is not an artifact of editing.

So the single, most damning piece of evidence in the whole case, the one that kept the Z film locked up in a safe for over a decade, was added on purpose, as a challenge to themselves, just to stick their tongues at us?

Barring collective hypnosis, the violent back snap is incontrovertible.

-Ramon

Edited October 3, 2015 by Ramon F. Herrera

[Ramon F. Herrera]

So the single, most damning piece of evidence in the whole case, the one that kept the Z film locked up in a safe for over a decade, was added on purpose, as a challenge to themselves, just to stick their tongues at us?

Hugo Chavez did this sort of thing: changed the time zone by 1/2 hour (Microsoft had to release an emergency patch to Windows, worldwide, thousands of devices only accept 1 hour increments: VoIP phones, etc.), added one star to the flag, the horse in the national seal, who was running to the right now runs to the left. Opened the sacred tomb and took the corpse of Simon Bolivar out.

Why?: "Because I can".

The sole purpose was to demonstrate -to friends and foes- his power.

-RFH

Edited October 3, 2015 by Ramon F. Herrera

[John Dolva]

rdered the exhumation of Simon Bolivar to determine if he was assassinated by arsenic poisoning = ??? "Opened the sacred tomb and took the corpse of Simon Bolivar out"

The time change was a reversion to a standard used since 1912 till 1965. It makes sense to have done so.

The Venezuela flag has been changed about ten times since it was designed. The adding of a star was to honour a wish of Bolivar.

If the right wing is bothered by the idea of the horse running for independence. Good. It shows the world where they stand.

"Because he can" : Bah.

[Ramon F. Herrera]

It would mean that the bullet deflected a little after impact. Entirely possible.

Why the deflection? The so-called "Herrera Effect" (competitor to the "Alvarez Effect") negates it. See below.

(1) Minimalist, from above: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5oMYjHEQkEQ

(2) With CFD: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k-G11nq5Pa4

(3) Lateral view with more realism: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tB6eB2lXBk8

-Ramon

====================================

This is my hypothesis, in slow motion, as it were:

(1) The *pointy* bullet enters the forehead causing little damage, the small orifice cannot possibly move an adult, much less reverse his forward movement.

(2) The cerebral mass accumulates a lot of energy which starts to push the back of the head. This is the principle upon bombs are based: increasing accumulation and sudden release of energy.

(3) Meanwhile, the bullet -who is in a real rush, having other businesses to attend (such as being many yards behind the limo, even buried in the pavement at this point) leaves the scene of the crime. The bullet exited through a tiny hole, but left a heck of a mess behind.

(4) Eventually the accumulated and compressed brain matter pushes so hard that a disk (to simplify the math) of occipital bone cannot possibly stay in place and bolts in a backwards motion, in the exact same direction as the projectile.

(5) It was this disk and its "glue" which *PULLED* (not pushed!) the body of a grown up, "back and to the left".

That model should be simple enough, but it captures the essence.

[Robert Prudhomme]

It would mean that the bullet deflected a little after impact. Entirely possible.

Why the deflection? The so-called "Herrera Effect" (competitor to the "Alvarez Effect") negates it. See below.

(1) Minimalist, from above: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5oMYjHEQkEQ

(2) With CFD: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k-G11nq5Pa4

(3) Lateral view with more realism: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tB6eB2lXBk8

-Ramon

====================================

This is my hypothesis, in slow motion, as it were:

(1) The *pointy* bullet enters the forehead causing little damage, the small orifice cannot possibly move an adult, much less reverse his forward movement.

(2) The cerebral mass accumulates a lot of energy which starts to push the back of the head. This is the principle upon bombs are based: increasing accumulation and sudden release of energy.

(3) Meanwhile, the bullet -who is in a real rush, having other businesses to attend (such as being many yards behind the limo, even buried in the pavement at this point) leaves the scene of the crime. The bullet exited through a tiny hole, but left a heck of a mess behind.

(4) Eventually the accumulated and compressed brain matter pushes so hard that a disk (to simplify the math) of occipital bone cannot possibly stay in place and bolts in a backwards motion, in the exact same direction as the projectile.

(5) It was this disk and its "glue" which *PULLED* (not pushed!) the body of a grown up, "back and to the left".

That model should be simple enough, but it captures the essence.

This is assuming two things; that the bullet that entered the front of JFK's head actually exited his skull, and that the large "exit" wound in the right rear of his skull was in alignment with the path of this bullet.

Edited October 3, 2015 by Robert Prudhomme

[Tom Neal]

So the single, most damning piece of evidence in the whole case, the one that kept the Z film locked up in a safe for over a decade...

Are you absolutely certain that the "back and to the left" movement is the "one" reason the Z film was not released? Hiding the limo "stop", hiding the interval between JFK and JBC's reaction to being hit by the same shot, the probable damage to the freeway sign, etc. would be adequate reasons... If so, then the hiding of the Z-film does NOT prove the violent motion *HAD* to occur.

Only if you are assuming the extant Zapruder film is intact and unaltered and the "violent" movement is not an artifact of editing.

Barring collective hypnosis, the violent back snap is incontrovertible.

As Chris states above, alteration of the film could easily create this violent motion. Suppose what actually occurred was JFK went limp from the massive blowout of his brain when he was shot in the head. He could simply have collapsed backward, but not violently. If there was a shot from the front, why don't we see more blood and brain tissue? The trunk hood, and interior were covered. To remove the blood spatter or evidence of a front shot frames had to be excised. This would cause a speeding up of JFK's rearward motion. Additionally, most believe that the limo "stopped" until the head shot, and then immediately accelerated. This would also exacerbate his movement rearward.

Tom

[Ramon F. Herrera]

This is assuming two things; that the bullet that entered the front of JFK's head actually exited his skull, and that the large "exit" wound in the right rear of his skull was in alignment with the path of this bullet.

Hi Bob:

Please go here, click in "View Brief" and read the "Contest Brief".

"Numerical Analysis of the Detailed Effects of a Bullet Passing Through a Human Cranium"

https://www.freelancer.com/contest/Numerical-Analysis-of-the-Detailed-Effects-of-a-Bullet-Passing-Through-a-Human-Cranium-281621.html

I am going with the minimalist scenario. Those simulations cost a pretty penny and you must start with Occam.

If you, Horne, Mantik, Chris Newton, etc. want to add a 2nd. bullet, you better bring a sack of dollars, to include your bullet(s), angle, etc.

Then again, this is a great business opportunity. Will explain later. Keep tuned.

-Ramon

ps: Required reading:

http://forum.assassinationofjfk.net/index.php/topic/1725-looking-for-douglas-horne-and-david-mantik/

http://scicomp.stackexchange.com/questions/20831/need-to-perform-a-computational-fluid-dynamic-simulation-analysis-of-a-human-bra

Edited October 3, 2015 by Ramon F. Herrera