Jump to content
The Education Forum

This is how the Frontal Shooter (or lack thereof) will be determined in an incontrovertible, accurate and scientific way

Recommended Posts

This is how the Frontal Shooter (or lack thereof) will be determined in an incontrovertible, accurate and scientific way.

Stage No. 1: It may take a few years for the science to be developed but this is the way to do it:

https://goo.gl/jTy69B (SBT. This is solved with technology)
https://goo.gl/da4mcQ (Head Shot. This is solved with science - See inside "Documentation" folder)

The result of those projects will be the creation of an OPEN infrastructure where all the interested parties will test their hypotheses, place the rifle(s) in some location and shoot: BANG! They will be trying thousands of combinations with varying angles, distances and calibers, recording the effect of each.

I predict that at that time, both the Jet Effect and the Sewer Drain Shot will be early dismissed.


Stage No. 2: The great news is that the science is already here. It just arrived.

As we all know, the Jet Effect has been widely debunked. The last explanation left to the Warrenistas is the "Neuromuscular Reaction", right?

I came up with the following idea.

Visualize a train that starts to move in the remote distance. It has 2 locomotives, one at each end. We can watch it, film it and measure it in slow motion.

The problem to solve is this:

Was the train moved by the front locomotive (pulling) or the back locomotive (pushing)?

The Parkland Effect posits that the head moved as if hit by a baseball bat, and therefore the chain of movement is:

bat --> head --> neck --> shoulders --> torso

In the Neuromuscular Effect (dismissed by all neurology specialists, but we are still obligated to study it from the point of view of Physics) the chain of movement is:

neck muscles, back muscles --> head, torso (randomly, supposedly the muscles of the back are stronger).

IOW: The cause and the effect are reversed.

What we need to do is simulate to a high degree of precision the 2 competing alternatives.

Was the Head of JFK Pushed or Pulled?

As you can see, I have very few files in that repository, but a new venue has been started. The longest trip begins with one step.

Next, I intend to contact the 3 authors of that research project and talk to them about using their remarkable development in the solution of the JFK murder case.

Obviously, if the request came from somebody (hint: some body) more representative than "Ramon Herrera, immigrant and JFK geek" it would have more effect.

Furthermore, it is my duty to inform the community about my experience in similar projects, one which has become a routine/pattern. Early on, the genius scientists (young people, mostly) are really excited about the JFK case. Soon afterwards, some wiser/prudent adult (the head of their group?) warns them, instills fear, and after that, they are not replying to my e-mails or phone calls. With people overseas I have been much more successful.


Edited by Ramon F. Herrera
Link to comment
Share on other sites

(SBT. This is solved with technology)

This is an egregious mis-statement of historical fact.

The SBT was debunked in the office of Arlen Specter in the summer of 1966.

Vincent Salandria helped Gaeton Fonzi spring the ambush on Specter.


The physical evidence -- bullet holes in the clothes 4 inches below the bottom of the collars -- is the prima facie case for conspiracy.

Among Pet Theorists the denial of these facts is an epidemic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Ramon,

The work your team and you have done with the animations is great. I have some questions and comments.

Regarding the animations of bullet from behind hitting the skull, it seems like it's moving way too slow. The reason why I say that is because when you watch the fragments fly, their momentum is very slow and they just kind of fall a few inches away from the skull. My hunch is that a high-speed bullet would have thrown the fragments much farther away. You may want to speed up the bullet speed so the fragments fly farther.

Unless I'm overlooking it, I don't see a bullet animation with a bullet fired from the front. Do you plan to do this?

I've always suspected that the hole in the back of the head could be a depiction of a wound of exit. The reason why I think that is because there is beveling around the hole. I made an animation of this a while seen here:

If and when you make a frontal bullet strike animation, perhaps you could use this trajectory?

I'm impressed with the soccer ball bouncing off the head animation. My hunch is that Kennedy was either very relaxed or not feeling all that hot that day because if you watch him throughout the motorcade, he's really leaning hard on that right side of the car. When he first gets in, he sits up but as it progresses, he really leans. What does that have to do with the soccer ball? I think because he was so relaxed when the bullets hit that you can really see his body react to them from their momentum. After the front throat shot hits, you can obviously see his body be pushed forward when the back shot hits almost immediately afterward. His head also bobs back and then forward. Then of course when the front head shot hits, it violently throws his entire body backward. So seeing this, and your soccer ball animation is quite telling, at least it is to me.

Further, if you watch Connally, he seems friendly but nervous throughout the motorcade. He's constantly sitting up and I'm thinking maybe stiff and tense. When the bullets hit him, his body does not appear to react from the momentum.

One final comment is during my research of the case, I've watched dozens and dozens of people take gunshots to the head from both behind and in front. Amazingly, and especially the shots from behind, I've yet to see "back and to the left" body reactions. Not a one. Ironically, I've seen frontal head shots and sometimes they push the head backward and sometimes they don't. There was one quick video I found on this forum showing a frontal head shot and the head flies violently backward. But I think it's quite telling that *no* footage I've seen of a bullet hitting the back of the head has ever shown the type of reaction that you see in the Z film.

That, to me, is why I've always believed that the Z film is authentic and was suppressed for many years before being allowed to be shown to the public at large.

Again, great job on your research and the animations and I look forward to seeing more as they become available.

Edited by Michael Walton
Link to comment
Share on other sites


This is an excellent idea. I really do hope you can pull it off.

I sent some of the agenda to Chesser via Debra Conway. So I hope he gets in contact with you.

You encourage this garbage?

That JFK was shot in the back at T3 and shot in the throat from the front is well established by the physical evidence, the testimony of Dealey Plaza and Parkland witnesses, the Zapruder film and the neck x-ray.

The DiEugenio/Von Pein camp will never acknowledge the obvious.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You're doing some cool stuff Ramon. But I'm not sure how the results of your SBT test will amount to any good. Even when it proves that the SBT is a farce, nobody on the WC side is going to believe it. They will scream, "garbage in, garbage out." The only minds that might be changed are those of the folks who understand the technology. And only if those folks spend the time to replicate the experiment will they accept it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You're doing some cool stuff Ramon. But I'm not sure how the results of your SBT test will amount to any good. Even when it proves that the SBT is a farce, nobody on the WC side is going to believe it. They will scream, "garbage in, garbage out." The only minds that might be changed are those of the folks who understand the technology. And only if those folks spend the time to replicate the experiment will they accept it.

Hi Sandy:

You have touched THE most important question about this and any investigation. This happens to be a central part of my life: the search for the truth. In fact, the question is not even "what is the truth in case xyz"? Is "abc true or false?". The fundamental question is your personal ROUTE to the truth. How do you decide who (persons and institutions) deserves your trust and who doesn't?

Interestingly, that subject was covered in the last course that I took in Venezuela, a month later I emigrated to the US, to get a university education and guess what? The FIRST course that I took in the US also covered the same topic. This is a maxim of mine, the first statement is what I learned and appropriated from those courses:

( a ) When it comes to the Truth, the only reference is our Universities.

( b ) The better the University, the more Liberal


(please let's ignore statement ( b ) for the time being!). To those who express doubts about ( a ), I tell: This issue is VERY easy to settle.

What alternative to universities (education, science, logic, etc) do you offer?

- Bible Thumping?

- Voodoo?

- "Because I am your mother and I say so!!"

- Despotism?

- Common Sense?

- Magic 8 Ball?

- Nancy Reagan's Astrologers?

Please read the following posts, beginning with the one by Tim Nickerson and the exchange between Yours Truly and Ronnie Wayne:


I will post a more complete answer as soon as I can.

Thanks for bringing this up.


Edited by Ramon F. Herrera
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Folks: The following is from the JFKFacts forum. It is perhaps THE most important post that I have made all these years, not only about the JFK case, but in general.


Tim Nickerson

“THE JFK MYTHS: A Scientific Investigation of the Kennedy Assassination” by Larry M Sturdivan


Ramon F Herrera

[Tim Nickerson:] “A Scientific Investigation”


Tim: Mr. Sturdivan and his acolytes do not even know the meaning of the word “Science”, let alone its principles, values and practices.

For starters: Not unlike love, Science is not for sale.


Ronnie Wayne

Ha! Science has been for sale for years. The Government and corporations pay much better than Academia. Have you read the recent revelations about Exxon and global warming, their suppression of scientific opinions? The “science” used in JFK’s autopsy was if not so sadly abused by control of it laughable. Why no probes, why no dissection of the throat and back wounds? Common forensic practices: Why did they not use practicing forensic pathologists? (yes, Fink was a called in late, and his notes were stolen).


Ramon F Herrera

Hi Ronnie:

You are referring to “science”, while I am referring to “Science”. For the difference, see the discussion about the 3D model of Lee here:


What we see in Dartmouth is almost Science with a capital “S”. Not quite pure, but close. Do you know the bright spot in all the shameful prostitution that went on during WCR, HSCA, ABC/Myers, etc.?

The universities did not sell their name and reputation and that makes me proud of them.

Notice how an individual person can sell his dignity. Luis Alvarez is a perfect example. He was affiliated with:

• University of Chicago
• Berkeley
• (plus, he would have been welcome in any top university)

and yet NONE of them wanted anything to do with his snake oil, Jet Effect. He would not dare to insult his peers, asking for institutional support.


The people in charge of the coverup have always stated: “Nobel Prize winner Luis Alvarez, such and such, blah, blah”, but they never dared (or will dare) to say:

“The Jet Effect, confirmed by MIT, Harvard and Stanford”

It was not only Alvarez: similar statements can be made of Sturdivan, Lattimer, etc. Companies can also be bought, wholesale, on the cheap. See Itek Corporation as a prime example.

Call me naive, but I believe no money, pressure or threats would force our best institutions to lie. The government did not dare to go that far and THAT, in itself, is one of the best evidences of conspiracy.

If anybody knows of a university (good one) which sold out, institutionally, I would be happy to know about it.


Ramon F Herrera

The following comment deserves further clarification:

“What we see in Dartmouth is almost Science with a capital “S”. Not quite pure, but close.”

I have always said that when it comes to the truth, the *only* reference is our universities. That is trivially easy to prove (See "voodoo" comment in my previous post).

In an ideal world, the backyard photo mystery would have been solved and accepted by everybody by now. There’s a sine qua non requirement, though, see imaginary announcement below, with the critical, missing requirement in uppercase.

“Dartmouth College (not some professor!!) announces the results of its study about the photograph of Lee Oswald. ALL THE FILES USED, SOFTWARE, NOTES, etc. HAVE BEEN POSTED IN THE FOLLOWING WEB SERVER: http://cs.dartmouth.edu. Universities and individuals are invited to participate”.

A few months later, the truth would be determined DEMOCRATICALLY as we read in the press:

• “Stanford University opines the following:” (i.e., confirms or denies)

• The results of Harvard University are [such and such]” (again: confirm or deny).

• “The Massachusetts Institute of Technology announces ….”.

• [plus, the best universities of Europe and elsewhere]


The only bigger truth than the one described above would be God's, but since he is not talking, what we have above is the ultimate truth.

That is not only the best solution, but the only solution.

Edited by Ramon F. Herrera
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ramon F Herrera

“The universities did not sell their name and reputation and that makes me proud of them.”


This is not to say that the response of the universities was blameless. Far from it! They should be ashamed of themselves, as they were complicit with their silence. The most famous, the epitome, is Harvard, which proudly carries the motto “Veritas”. Yeah, right… Veritas my rear bottom!

Let’s attempt to find an excuse on their behalf. There has to be a reasonable explanation for their inaction, right?. This is probably how a standoff position was reached:

Universities: “This is not our party, we have not been invited. Prof. Robert Blakey decided which companies and people were to be hired." (some would call it “bought”).

(In the HSCA FPP -Forensic Pathology Panel- Blakey had no option but to leave one dissenting voice, doctor Cyril Wecht, join the otherwise exclusive club. Thank God that his professional and human integrity is not for sale).

To sum things up: Those were Détente times, so for half a century our top institutions of education and research reached this one with the government: “Don’t ask, don’t tell”.

The coverup agents to university deans:

“Okay, let’s be reasonable here. You know very well that we can cut the flow of grants and apply many other kinds of pressure. We can make life very uncomfortable for you and your professors, but we won’t force you to certify our results. We won’t ask. As consideration for our generosity, you will not tell.”

The big question is whether that state of immobility remains and makes sense today.


Edited by Ramon F. Herrera
Link to comment
Share on other sites

FWIW, Ramon, Blakey didn't invite Wecht. Wecht was invited onto the FPP at the insistence of Robert Tanenbaum before Blakey was involved. Dr. Baden then picked the others, most of whom had a clear conflict of interest in that they had recently worked with Dr. Fisher, whose findings they would be reviewing, under contract to the Justice Dept., whose findings they would be reviewing.

As far as Universities. I seriously doubt most or even a large minority of Americans see them as having any real credibility.

The Justice Dept., for example, hid behind "universities" in its supposed selection of the Clark Panel. They asked the head of four top universities to make a suggestion. It just so happened, of course, that the four men supposedly "randomly" picked, from the entire country, were connected to at least one of the other panelists, and that the panel's leader, Fisher, had a close working relationship with two of them.

And it's just another coincidence, of course, that Fisher's two closest associates, Petty and Spitz, ended up on the HSCA panel.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As far as Universities. I seriously doubt most or even a large minority of Americans see them as having any real credibility.


I guess I have to explain again the meaning of INSTITUTIONAL (*). Additionally, I am referring to numeric, repeatable, peer reviewed stuff, not opinions.

It is completely irrelevant if poorly educated people have no idea, as long as the genetic procedure saves their lives, their iPhone works and the GPS takes them to their destination.

Science believes in the ignorant, regardless of whether the ignorant people by you mentioned (claimed) do not believe in science.

Modern civilization relies on it.


(*) A study signed by Alvarez vs. a study signed by Berkeley. Not quite the same thing. In fact, they are the opposite in credibility.

Edited by Ramon F. Herrera
Link to comment
Share on other sites


It is important to clarify something that helps your argument, and I must concede

It is absurd trying to conflate the elite universities with the rest. Let's say that all of them are tasked with the following:

"Using the most advanced, leading edge science and state of the art technology, determine the origin of the fatal shot that hit president Kennedy and issue a report"

The following will not happen:

- College Aarvard presents its study.

[here, alphabetically, we have the results of 2,000 universities]

- University Zulu presents its study.

What will happen is that 99% of institutions will say:

"Since RPI has a close association with MIT, we will co-sign whatever MIT says".

- Other lesser colleges will vote for Harvard.

- The California schools will endorse CalTech (which ended up as best university in the world recently) or perhaps Stanford.

At the end, only a handful will be left.

Science is by nature elitist to a fault, extremely competitive, not populist.


Edited by Ramon F. Herrera
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I give you an A for intent, Ramon, but remain skeptical about the belief in science. To me it's like capitalism. The most successful capitalists don't really believe in capitalism, but avail themselves of tax breaks and strategic bankruptcies whenever possible, and hire lobbyists and representatives to assure they never get into a fair fight.

Science, to my way of thinking, is similarly corrupt. Bias is rampant. A study was done awhile ago which compared the results of peer-reviewed pharmaceutical studies which are funded by corporations vs. peer-reviewed studies funded blindly. 98% of the studies were positive when the company developing the drug funded the study, while only 80% were positive when the "scientists" didn't know who was paying the bills.

And this was not nearly as shocking as the report which came out a few years ago. Some university (yes, they are not all corrupt all the time) decided to go back and try to repeat a number of the most prominent studies of recent years...studies whose results had become accepted "science". And they found that a large percentage of them--nearly half as I recall--could not be reproduced. So the peer-review process is broken. It doesn't work. Most "science" isn't true SCIENCE. Virtually all of Lattimer's papers pushing the single-bullet theory, for example, got published in peer-reviewed journals, even though they were thoroughly flawed in concept and execution.

I also had the displeasure of talking to Skeptic Magazine publisher Michael Schermer this year. He believes in science and touts its benefits more than anyone this side of Neil deGrasse-Tyson. And then he tells you the single-bullet theory has been scientifically tested and confirmed over and over again.

People believe what they want to believe, no matter the facts. Even scientists. Thomas Kuhn discovered this while writing the The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. He found that "scientists", once wed to a theory, almost never embraced a new theory, no matter how much better it answered the questions. We see this all the time in the research community, and on this forum. Scientists are no different.

Now, as far as institutions... It's a myth that universities as institutions are normally on the right side of history. If I remember Lies My Teacher Told Me correctly, the vast majority of universities and students, at least initially, supported the Vietnam War, and totally bought into the notion we needed to kill the commies over there before they came over here. LBJ thought he could hold onto their support, for that matter, as long as he drafted minorities and the non-college-bound.

When one looks elsewhere, moreover, this is pretty typical. The Nazis, after all, met little resistance from academia. Some of the top scientists left the country. The rest played along, and burped out "scientific" papers defending the master race, etc.

Edited by Pat Speer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in

Sign In Now

  • Create New...