Temple Logic?

[Ron Bulman]

I took Philosophy 101.  Passed it somehow.  That means at least a "C", I don't remember much about it as far as details and names.  I do remember something about there being a cause for any effect, this having something to do with logic. 

On the current Parkland Transcript topic a left or right temple wound is discussed.  There is support for the possibility of either.  Jim Garrison brought the fact of back and to the left to the Jury in the Clay Shaw trial.  Oliver Stone brought it to the world.  It's a fact not edited or blobbed out of the Zapruder film.  JFK didn't tilt or nod his head back and to the left, it and his body was slammed that direction.  He was facing virtually straight forward at the time of impact.  I never had any physics courses but logic seems to imply to me that back and to the left means from in front and to the right.

A shot from JFK's right front would have to go in somewhere.  You don't see it in the death stare photo on his forehead.  No mention of the frontal hair line I've ever read about.  There is some support for a right temple wound, resulting in the right rear orange size exit wound observed by many at Parkland.  How is back and to the left supported with a shot to the left temple?  

One to either side would have been a top priority of the coverup.

[Tony Krome]

If you use Jackie's right shoulder as a reference, does it look like Kennedy's head has been slammed that way?

Slow motion at 1:57

 

Edited April 14, 2019 by Tony Krome

[James DiEugenio]

yes it  does.

 

Thanks for that.  He did some nice work.

 

This is something that I always suspected, 313 was a shot to the temple.

Edited April 15, 2019 by James DiEugenio

[Ron Bulman]

First, if I can back up a bit.  I'm no film expert.  I have looked at the individual frames and watched the film in full screen and slow motion several times over the years.

http://assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/

I realize this has been discussed thousands of times over those years by some who are much more experienced and expert than I, along with many who have watched the original blurred version once or maybe twice, with little other knowledge about the assassination or shots in particular.  But yes Tony, using Jackie's shoulder as a marker I do see I do see what I think is certainly back and somewhat to the left using both the frame by frame and the last "super zoom, quarter speed" version in the clip you provide.  (which is excellent thank you, the colorized to 1/2  speed to 1/2 speed zoomed...to 1/4 speed super zoomed I don't think I've seen before).

My statement of he was facing virtually straight forward at the time of impact is incorrect.  From the time he comes out from behind the Stemmons sign with his hands going to his throat he looks briefly toward Jackie but back forward then somewhere around frame 260 he begins tilting or leaning towards her.  By frame 312 he has leaned and turned slightly towards her.  The top of his forehead is even with her right cheek.  313 is initial impact.  By 317 it looks to me like he is at least a little further to the left, hard to tell from his side in 2-3 frames for sure though.  By 323, the frame shown in your above link he has "returned" to the point of being even with her shoulder.  I say returned because in the 1/2-1/4 speed zooms in your link/clip it looks like his head goes back past her shoulder for a brief second then snaps back forward (a natural "bounce back" reaction or maybe the people who claim two shots to the head are right?).  But I don't see it in the frames.  It's not impossible in 319 (about right in timing?) but its pretty blurred (Zapruder's reaction to the shot?).  But we do have his forehead going backwards from her cheek in 312 to it being even with the outside of her right shoulder in 323.  So yes, back, and I think further to the left.  In spite of Dan Rather's "honest mistake" as the only reporter to publicly, the next day, review the film for the first dozen years. I still don't see a violent snap forward.

I can see a shot to the left temple causing the right rear exit wound.  But for me this would almost have to come from the South knoll, which I don't claim is impossible.  I cannot see an effect of straight back or as I think further to the left. 

[Gene Kelly]

Ron

You have hit upon a question that has plagued philosophers for many years (i.e. must there be a cause for every effect?).  Philosophers will argue that there is no way to answer the question unless we have a context to judge what is to count as a "cause" ... events that are judged to have no cause in one context, might be judged to have one in another.   Causality is therefore an abstraction that indicates how the world progresses, so basic a concept that it is more apt as an explanation of other concepts of progression than as something to be explained by others more basic. They analyze 'cause and effect' as both a linguistic and metaphysical phenomenon, and there are deep questions as to whether or not we can know about the metaphysical one (if  it exists). And what we mean by cause, since there seems to be two different kinds of things called 'cause': the first is a motive thing that somehow forces another thing to exist (e.g. a boxer's punch causes/forces their opponent to become disoriented) and a "grounding relation" (i.e. it's necessary that there be oxygen if there's a fire, but the presence of oxygen along doesn't cause the existence of fire).  Not to get too deep, but Philosopher Emmanuel Kant stated that the principle of causality is one that is inserted within our mind … as differentiated from what really exists. Kant famously attempted to “answer” what he took to be Hume’s skeptical view of causality, put forward in 1783.

Causality is one of the most fundamental and essential notions of physics but one has to be careful about notions of causality.  In Quantum Mechanics, physicist Max Born distinguished determination from causality in 1949. For him, determination meant that actual events are so linked by laws of nature that certainly reliable predictions and retrodictions can be made from sufficient present data about them. Physicists of the past century have entertained a variety of theories positing backward causation, including the Wheeler-Feynman theory of radiation, Feynman's tachyon theory and his theory of positrons as electrons moving backwards in time.  In mathematics, one must beware of logical fallacies: Just because the cause came before the effect does not mean that it caused the effect, otherwise known as Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc. There are often hidden causes, some of them that precede causes, for certain effects (so be sure that you can say that your cause came before your effect).  if you want to make your brain hurt, read the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy on the Principle of Causation. 

Gene

 

[Ron Bulman]

9 hours ago, Gene Kelly said:

Ron

You have hit upon a question that has plagued philosophers for many years (i.e. must there be a cause for every effect?).  Philosophers will argue that there is no way to answer the question unless we have a context to judge what is to count as a "cause" ... events that are judged to have no cause in one context, might be judged to have one in another.   Causality is therefore an abstraction that indicates how the world progresses, so basic a concept that it is more apt as an explanation of other concepts of progression than as something to be explained by others more basic. They analyze 'cause and effect' as both a linguistic and metaphysical phenomenon, and there are deep questions as to whether or not we can know about the metaphysical one (if  it exists). And what we mean by cause, since there seems to be two different kinds of things called 'cause': the first is a motive thing that somehow forces another thing to exist (e.g. a boxer's punch causes/forces their opponent to become disoriented) and a "grounding relation" (i.e. it's necessary that there be oxygen if there's a fire, but the presence of oxygen along doesn't cause the existence of fire).  Not to get too deep, but Philosopher Emmanuel Kant stated that the principle of causality is one that is inserted within our mind … as differentiated from what really exists. Kant famously attempted to “answer” what he took to be Hume’s skeptical view of causality, put forward in 1783.

Causality is one of the most fundamental and essential notions of physics but one has to be careful about notions of causality.  In Quantum Mechanics, physicist Max Born distinguished determination from causality in 1949. For him, determination meant that actual events are so linked by laws of nature that certainly reliable predictions and retrodictions can be made from sufficient present data about them. Physicists of the past century have entertained a variety of theories positing backward causation, including the Wheeler-Feynman theory of radiation, Feynman's tachyon theory and his theory of positrons as electrons moving backwards in time.  In mathematics, one must beware of logical fallacies: Just because the cause came before the effect does not mean that it caused the effect, otherwise known as Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc. There are often hidden causes, some of them that precede causes, for certain effects (so be sure that you can say that your cause came before your effect).  if you want to make your brain hurt, read the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy on the Principle of Causation. 

Gene

 

My brain hurts enough.  I got lost in math at logarithms.  As I mentioned I passed the 101 version with a C, no upper level courses with A's

 

 

 

 

 

Edited April 16, 2019 by Ron Bulman

[Ron Bulman]

4 minutes ago, Ron Bulman said:

My brain hurts enough.  I got lost in math at logarithms.  As I mentioned I passed the 101 version with a C, no upper level courses with A's.

Though my basic more natural sense of logic still says back, and to the left, violently, equals from the right front.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Pat Speer]

On 4/15/2019 at 11:37 AM, Gene Kelly said:

Ron

You have hit upon a question that has plagued philosophers for many years (i.e. must there be a cause for every effect?).  Philosophers will argue that there is no way to answer the question unless we have a context to judge what is to count as a "cause" ... events that are judged to have no cause in one context, might be judged to have one in another.   Causality is therefore an abstraction that indicates how the world progresses, so basic a concept that it is more apt as an explanation of other concepts of progression than as something to be explained by others more basic. They analyze 'cause and effect' as both a linguistic and metaphysical phenomenon, and there are deep questions as to whether or not we can know about the metaphysical one (if  it exists). And what we mean by cause, since there seems to be two different kinds of things called 'cause': the first is a motive thing that somehow forces another thing to exist (e.g. a boxer's punch causes/forces their opponent to become disoriented) and a "grounding relation" (i.e. it's necessary that there be oxygen if there's a fire, but the presence of oxygen along doesn't cause the existence of fire).  Not to get too deep, but Philosopher Emmanuel Kant stated that the principle of causality is one that is inserted within our mind … as differentiated from what really exists. Kant famously attempted to “answer” what he took to be Hume’s skeptical view of causality, put forward in 1783.

Causality is one of the most fundamental and essential notions of physics but one has to be careful about notions of causality.  In Quantum Mechanics, physicist Max Born distinguished determination from causality in 1949. For him, determination meant that actual events are so linked by laws of nature that certainly reliable predictions and retrodictions can be made from sufficient present data about them. Physicists of the past century have entertained a variety of theories positing backward causation, including the Wheeler-Feynman theory of radiation, Feynman's tachyon theory and his theory of positrons as electrons moving backwards in time.  In mathematics, one must beware of logical fallacies: Just because the cause came before the effect does not mean that it caused the effect, otherwise known as Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc. There are often hidden causes, some of them that precede causes, for certain effects (so be sure that you can say that your cause came before your effect).  if you want to make your brain hurt, read the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy on the Principle of Causation. 

Gene

 

Cue up The Philosopher's Song by Monty Python. 

 

Edited April 16, 2019 by Pat Speer

[Ron Bulman]

Never saw that one before Pat.  Pretty funny.  Would they all agree levity is a necessity if we are to take ourselves seriously? 

Anyway I wanted to correct my first post.  I went from Garrison at the Shaw trial on back and to the left straight to Stone and JFK.  Skipped right over Groden on Geraldo in 1975.  If he'd never stolen the copies of the frames would enough people have ever been shocked enough to have caused the HSCA and kept the search for the truth alive?

[Gene Kelly]

Sorry Ron ... I teach physics, and so I couldn't resist pontificating a bit.  But I think the discussion has merit for what this thread tackles (i.e. the shot to JFK's temple).  Here's a bit more: 

One of the people who helped elevate cause and effect to its exalted heights was David Hume (1711 -1776). He was a leading philosopher of his day and known as one of the British empiricists (in contradistinction to the continental rationalists). Hume was one of the first to realize that the developing sciences had undermined Aristotle’s ideas on cause and effect.  But Hume’s definitions were flawed. Consider the analogy of night and day; day invariably follows night and the two are thought of together ... but night does not cause day in any sense of the word. Rather, both day and night are caused by the rotation of the earth (i.e. a geocentric frame, by the sun circling the earth).  The true cause has no aspect of one thing following another, or one causing thought of the other. And the cause does not have to any way resemble the effect.  So, cause and effect is much more complicated than Hume thought, but not nonexistent as it detractors (like Bertrand Russell) maintain. In the words of the statistician: correlation does not imply causation ... however, it can give a strong hint.  Cause and effect went out of favor as a cornerstone of science about the time quantum mechanics was developed. Quantum mechanics is non-deterministic with events occurring randomly. Much of physics, as Russell observed, does not explicitly use cause and effect. The equations work equally well forwards or backwards, deriving the past from present as much as the future from the past. Nonetheless, the idea of cause and effect is still useful, and its meaning is “in the model”. Cause and effect is not something that can be immediately deduced from observation, as Hume implies, but it is not a meaningless concept as Russell said or the quantum physics discussion might seem to imply. Rather, when we develop our models for a particular situation the idea of causation comes out of that model, is part and parcel of the model.  The idea that the earth’s rotation causes day and night comes out of our model for light, vision and the solar system.

So, I think we need to be careful about our “model” for the shots to JFK's head, particularly as derived from the Zapruder Film frames, Parkland/autopsy observations, even eyewitness accounts.

Gene

[Joe Bauer]

Unfortunately I never made it past high school nor have I read much in the area of philosophy and physics.

But the sharing of others in this regards is extremely interesting.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited April 18, 2019 by Joe Bauer

[Rick McTague]

7 hours ago, Gene Kelly said:

So, I think we need to be careful about our “model” for the shots to JFK's head, particularly as derived from the Zapruder Film frames, Parkland/autopsy observations, even eyewitness accounts.

 

Gene

Gene,

Like Joe, I have very little formal education in the area of physics and related areas of study.  Having said that, doesn't just plain common sense in viewing the back and to the left head snap of JFK, the many day one observations by Parkland health care professionals of his back of head wound, the evidence of spatter and brain matter impacting Officer Hargis and the Harper fragment all line up to a shot from the front entering the right temple area (as demonstrated by Kilduff) and exiting the rear lower/middle head of JFK?  

I mean, when you take it all together it seems like that is a logical conclusion.  In addition, those factors make the theory of a head shot behind and higher from the SE window of the 6th floor much less logical.

Thoughts?

Thanks

[Joe Bauer]

Here is another question I have.

With the most modern and advanced photographic analysis technology we have today ( unlike back in 1963) could we slow down the film enough ( or using frame by frame analysis ) to see whether the uplifting deformation of the back top of JFK's skull began "before" the top right part of his skull blew apart?

Or did it happen a micro second after?

If JFK's back top skull deformed as seen by his rising hair happened first...then wouldn't it be a no brainer that a bullet entered the back of his skull versus the left front?

Edited April 20, 2019 by Joe Bauer

[Paul Brancato]

if we could prove through advanced photo analysis that, without a shred of doubt, JFK was killed by a bullet from the front, what then? 

[Gene Kelly]

Rick

I was just reacting to Ron's comment last Saturday:

I do remember something about there being a cause for any effect, this having something to do with logic. 

There is no "rule" in logic or science that states there must be a cause for every effect.  I am over clubbing (as they say in golf) but pointing out that cause and effect are not always what they seem.  The analogy is to conclude that smoking 'causes' lung cancer, which isn't universally or absolutely true.  It's correlated (as they say in statistics) and a contributing cause (nicotine is carcinogenic) but not the cause.   My overstated point is that there are many causes of most events (rather than a single cause). Most are not guaranteed (by themselves) to trigger the event ... they only add to the likelihood of it happening.  Statisticians like to say that "correlation does not imply causation". 

In my line of work (I'm a nuclear engineer doing probabilistic risk assessment), we perform root cause investigations when something fails or an event occurs.  There are several techniques used to arrive at a cause - and I have performed hundreds of these investigations in my career - and you're taught to "go down the why staircase" (i.e. keep asking why ... don't stop at the most apparent or superficial driver).   So, I don't dispute the temple logic or backwards head movement ... but the cause (or causes) appears to be indeterminant. 

Back to Dealey Plaza: everything that I've read suggests a shot from the front (probably the South Knoll) ... multiple shooters with a simultaneity from several directions.   I've come to believe that Zapruder (and his Film) are distractions and meant to confuse.  The throat injury was a wound of entry ... too many anomalies and rationalizations (or intimidations) suggest otherwise.   I also believe the President was hit initially, prior to the Stemmons sign ... and I don't trust the Z Film or photographs to tell us the full story.   I also believe that there are other facts that we are not privy to -and will not ever know - that explain the head wounds and JFK's apparent head movement. What I am convinced of is, the people who did this knew what they were doing ... and they inserted a lot of distractions, false information, head fakes and magic tricks which make establishing cause and effect almost impossible. 

Gene