Jump to content
The Education Forum

The Jet Splatter Effect Theory


Len Colby
 Share

Recommended Posts

The question of the “jet splatter” theory came up in the Zapruder thread and was wondering what your assessments of it were. I imagine that most JFK researchers dismiss it out of hand but I would recommend reading the article in which it was proposed and consider the credentials of its author Luis Alvarez winner of the 1968 Nobel Prize in physics among other distinctions. John Costella this guy ain’t.

Jet splatter theory:

http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk...8_4_Alvarez.pdf

Alvarez bios:

http://nobelprize.org/physics/laureates/19...lvarez-bio.html

http://www.nobel-winners.com/Physics/luis_...er_alvarez.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The question of the “jet splatter” theory came up in the Zapruder thread and was wondering what your assessments of it were. I imagine that most JFK researchers dismiss it out of hand but I would recommend reading the article in which it was proposed and consider the credentials of its author Luis Alvarez winner of the 1968 Nobel Prize in physics among other distinctions. John Costella this guy ain’t.

Jet splatter theory:

http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk...8_4_Alvarez.pdf

Alvarez bios:

http://nobelprize.org/physics/laureates/19...lvarez-bio.html

http://www.nobel-winners.com/Physics/luis_...er_alvarez.html

Hi Len,

Honestly -- I'm NOT under the influence of cold meds on this post!

I do not dismiss the jet effect, but I do not necessarily subscribe to it, either. (How is that for an evasive position!?)

There are several principles of physics involved in considering the jet effect, but the main ones being Conservation of Energy and Conservation of Angular Momentum. Newton's second law of motion (for every action, there is an equal but opposite reaction) creeps in to the explanation as well. These are, of course, valid and demonstrable principles of physics. The question is not with the principles involved, but are they being applied correctly to the situation at hand. A secondary question revolves around the completeness of the data set used to create the theory.

So...

Those elements that favor the Jet Effect:

1 - Conservation of energy and angular momentum indicates that the bullet's energy had to, in effect, go somewhere.

2 - If the "jet" we see is, in essence, "forward and right" then the compensatory reaction would be "back and left"

3 - Some test shots fired into an object did show jet effect behavior was possible.

Those elements that call into question the Jet Effect:

1 - The assumption that gave rise to the jet effect is the concept of the ballistic pendulum. The ballistic pendulum's motion is partially restricted in one axis (negative z-axis) and is largely unrestricted in the other two. This is not necessarily consistent with firing into a human skull, which is motion damped in all directions, but not entirely motion restricted in any. In other words, the model that gave rise to the idea may not be the best one for the situation.

2 - There are additional forces that are not accounted for in the theory. Neuro spasms are certainly possible, and virtually impossible to verify, measure, or replicate. The effect of the back brace is also not known.

3 - We do not truly know the angle or location of entry and exit of the headwound. There is confusion and debate on this issue. It makes a difference when considering angular momentum.

4 - The test for plausibility of the jet effect took place using mellons and packing tape. This has convinced me that the jet effect is possible when one shoots at mellons wrapped with packing tape. On the other hand, I'm not the least bit convinced that this is a plausible substitute for a human head. The nature of the materials, when under extreme forces and stress, may not be sufficiently similar to make a valid comparison. The "jet effect" could be exactly as described, but only when the materials involved exhibit certain characteristics...

On the other hand, while I do hold a degree in Physics, I'm not a Nobel-winning Ph.D. by any stretch of the imagination! ;)

When I get some time, I'll try to write some more on the physics of this...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are several principles of physics involved in considering the jet effect4 -

The test for plausibility of the jet effect took place using mellons and packing tape. This has convinced me that the jet effect is possible when one shoots at mellons wrapped with packing tape. On the other hand, I'm not the least bit convinced that this is a plausible substitute for a human head.

The principles of physics are endlessly fascinating, and amateur experiments with melons (Alvarez), and skulls & ladders (Lattimer) are just loads of fun, but the acid test for any theory comes with rigorous, replicable experiments. Such experiments on the Jet Effect theory were in fact conducted by the United States Army, an organization that knows as much about the effect of bullets on the human body as anyone, or any organization, in the world. The results can be found in the testimony of Larry Sturdivan before the House Select Committe on Assassinations. These results are clear and unambiguous: there is no such thing as a "Jet Effect" when a bullet strikes a human skull; the skull will ALWAYS move in the same direction as the bullet.

For anyone who still doubts this, please see the testimony of Larry Sturdivan in the HSCA volumes (History-Matters website has the compete set). From memory, Sturdivan's testimony is in volume one.

This joker in the deck was thrown out decades ago, but Gerald Posner never got the news.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The question of the “jet splatter” theory came up in the Zapruder thread and was wondering what your assessments of it were. I imagine that most JFK researchers dismiss it out of hand but I would recommend reading the article in which it was proposed and consider the credentials of its author Luis Alvarez winner of the 1968 Nobel Prize in physics among other distinctions. John Costella this guy ain’t.

Jet splatter theory:

http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk...8_4_Alvarez.pdf

Alvarez bios:

http://nobelprize.org/physics/laureates/19...lvarez-bio.html

http://www.nobel-winners.com/Physics/luis_...er_alvarez.html

Hi Len,

Honestly -- I'm NOT under the influence of cold meds on this post!

I do not dismiss the jet effect, but I do not necessarily subscribe to it, either. (How is that for an evasive position!?)

There are several principles of physics involved in considering the jet effect, but the main ones being Conservation of Energy and Conservation of Angular Momentum. Newton's second law of motion (for every action, there is an equal but opposite reaction) creeps in to the explanation as well. These are, of course, valid and demonstrable principles of physics. The question is not with the principles involved, but are they being applied correctly to the situation at hand. A secondary question revolves around the completeness of the data set used to create the theory.

So...

Those elements that favor the Jet Effect:

1 - Conservation of energy and angular momentum indicates that the bullet's energy had to, in effect, go somewhere.

2 - If the "jet" we see is, in essence, "forward and right" then the compensatory reaction would be "back and left"

3 - Some test shots fired into an object did show jet effect behavior was possible.

Those elements that call into question the Jet Effect:

1 - The assumption that gave rise to the jet effect is the concept of the ballistic pendulum. The ballistic pendulum's motion is partially restricted in one axis (negative z-axis) and is largely unrestricted in the other two. This is not necessarily consistent with firing into a human skull, which is motion damped in all directions, but not entirely motion restricted in any. In other words, the model that gave rise to the idea may not be the best one for the situation.

2 - There are additional forces that are not accounted for in the theory. Neuro spasms are certainly possible, and virtually impossible to verify, measure, or replicate. The effect of the back brace is also not known.

3 - We do not truly know the angle or location of entry and exit of the headwound. There is confusion and debate on this issue. It makes a difference when considering angular momentum.

4 - The test for plausibility of the jet effect took place using mellons and packing tape. This has convinced me that the jet effect is possible when one shoots at mellons wrapped with packing tape. On the other hand, I'm not the least bit convinced that this is a plausible substitute for a human head. The nature of the materials, when under extreme forces and stress, may not be sufficiently similar to make a valid comparison. The "jet effect" could be exactly as described, but only when the materials involved exhibit certain characteristics...

On the other hand, while I do hold a degree in Physics, I'm not a Nobel-winning Ph.D. by any stretch of the imagination! :D

When I get some time, I'll try to write some more on the physics of this...

Colby? LOL...Be curious to see your take on the 'Jet Effect', Frank --

Costella also holds a degree in Physics, PhD, as does David Mantik ,MD. and Ph.D -- Don't believe either one blesses this theory... I won't interupt the thread again....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are several principles of physics involved in considering the jet effect4 -

The test for plausibility of the jet effect took place using mellons and packing tape. This has convinced me that the jet effect is possible when one shoots at mellons wrapped with packing tape. On the other hand, I'm not the least bit convinced that this is a plausible substitute for a human head.

The principles of physics are endlessly fascinating, and amateur experiments with melons (Alvarez), and skulls & ladders (Lattimer) are just loads of fun, but the acid test for any theory comes with rigorous, replicable experiments. Such experiments on the Jet Effect theory were in fact conducted by the United States Army, an organization that knows as much about the effect of bullets on the human body as anyone, or any organization, in the world. The results can be found in the testimony of Larry Sturdivan before the House Select Committe on Assassinations. These results are clear and unambiguous: there is no such thing as a "Jet Effect" when a bullet strikes a human skull; the skull will ALWAYS move in the same direction as the bullet.

For anyone who still doubts this, please see the testimony of Larry Sturdivan in the HSCA volumes (History-Matters website has the compete set). From memory, Sturdivan's testimony is in volume one.

This joker in the deck was thrown out decades ago, but Gerald Posner never got the news.

Well, we agree on this one! Sturdivan's testimony is indeed interesting, as he completely debunks the Nobel-Prize winning physicist Alvarez (albeit one who'd cooperated with the CIA in the persecution of Robert Oppenheimer). The HSCA, by the way, in one of their typical moments of cowardice, refused to choose between Alvarez and Sturdivan and instead decided they were BOTH right and that the back and to the left motion came from BOTH the jet effect and a neuro-muscular response.

Sturdivan acknowledged that a slight jet effect exists, but that it is insufficient to throw a BODY backwards. Lattimer and Alvarez' tests, remember, used only watermelons and skulls. Researcher Wallace Milam, by the way, noticed that the skulls in Lattimer's tests transferred their energy into the ladders, and inevitably forced the ladder to tip forward as the skull flew backwards. This suggested that the skulls were flying backwards from the recoil of being bounced into the ladders. When Milam repeated Lattimer's tests with skulls ATTACHED to the ladders, the skull ALWAYS blew forward.

My theory entails that the fatal shot at 313 impacted on Kennedy's right temple from behind. As Kennedy was leaning 25 degrees to his left--as shown in the Moorman photo--this placed his temple near the top of his head. A bullet striking at such an angle from the sniper's nest would create a tangential wound to the skull and go on to hit the windshield where in fact the windshield was struck. Tangential wounds are reported to cause "torsion industries" and are often called "slap" wounds, because the amount of energy impacting on one side of the body or skull causes the body to twist in response. I have tilted my head forward and to the left many times and when I slap my right temple my head inevitably goes back and to the left. You may want to try this at home if you don't believe me.

But don't get carried away... if you relax a gentle slap will reveal the effect.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Colby? LOL...Be curious to see your take on the 'Jet Effect',

I don't have a take on"Jet Effect" I'm neither a scientist nor a close student of the assassination. That's why I asked about it. Unlike you I don't play games, if I had a take i would have stated it at the outset.

Frank --

Costella also holds a degree in Physics, PhD, as does David Mantik ,MD. and Ph.D -- Don't believe either one blesses this theory... I won't interupt the thread again....

Mantik from what I've read seems like a serious scientist, Costella on the other hand is a grammar school teacher with no peer reviewed papers to his credit. Right or wrong about the 'jet effect' Alvarez's credentials extendended far beyond those three letters after his name.

It's not enough for Costella and Mantik to say they disagree with Alvarez's theory, they need to say why - otherwise advanced degrees and all their opinions aren't worth much.

Edited by Len Colby
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sturdivan acknowledged that a slight jet effect exists, but that it is insufficient to throw a BODY backwards.
... experiments on the Jet Effect theory were in fact conducted by the United States Army, an organization that knows as much about the effect of bullets on the human body as anyone, or any organization, in the world. The results can be found in the testimony of Larry Sturdivan before the House Select Committe on Assassinations. These results are clear and unambiguous: there is no such thing as a "Jet Effect" when a bullet strikes a human skull; the skull will ALWAYS move in the same direction as the bullet.

Pat / Raymond

You guys seems to slightly disagree on Surdivan's findings. Do either of you care to clarify that?

Two more doubts -

How exactly did the Army replicate the effect of bullets on the skulls of live humans?

Could the effects microspasams combine with that of jet effect?

Len

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Len Colby asks: "Could the effects microspasams combine with that of jet effect?"

Len, presumably you mean could a neuromuscular reaction combine with a Jet Effect?

The answer would be yes if there was such a thing as a Jet Effect. Please see my response to Pat Speer below.

Pat says that "Sturdivan acknowledged that a slight jet effect exists." I honestly do not remember him saying that but its a while since I read his testimony. If he did say that, would Pat agree that there was nothing in the Army's experimental results to support that assertion? (BTW I think Sturdivan's testimony was televised by PBS. If so the video, presumably including the army films of their experiments, should be availble somewhere)

The HSCA, by the way, in one of their typical moments of cowardice, refused to choose between Alvarez and Sturdivan and instead decided they were BOTH right and that the back and to the left motion came from BOTH the jet effect and a neuro-muscular response.

Pat, I think you are referring to the report of the medical panel, which was issued BEFORE Sturdivan testified, when the doctors had no way of knowing that the Jet Effect had been debunked. In their ignorance, the medical panel (the forensic pathologists?) did argue for a combination of JetEffect/Neuromuscular reaction. By the time the HSCA Report itself was published, however, Blakey et al knew that Sturdivan had destroyed the whole Jet Effect theory, but they had no time or money to recall the medical panel. I have not gone back to check the final HSCA report, but my recollection is that the Jet Effect was left out. If I am mistaken and it was left in, then Robert Blakey would be guilty of an egregious act of intellectual dishonesty.

Researcher Wallace Milam ... noticed that the skulls in Lattimer's tests transferred their energy into the ladders, and inevitably forced the ladder to tip forward as the skull flew backwards. This suggested that [Lattimer's] skulls were flying backwards from the recoil of being bounced into the ladders. When Milam repeated Lattimer's tests with skulls ATTACHED to the ladders, the skull ALWAYS blew forward.

Very interesting. Dr. Joe Reilly pointed out this billiard - ball effect to me some years ago. It explains the difference between the results achieved by Lattimer and the Army's results. The Army did not use a shaky ladder in their experiments; they used a sturdy table.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

part of a series of posts collected in one. please see below.

Edited by John Dolva
Link to comment
Share on other sites

part of a series of posts collected in one. please see below.

Edited by John Dolva
Link to comment
Share on other sites

part of a series of posts collected in one. please see below.

Edited by John Dolva
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The question of the “jet splatter” theory came up in the Zapruder thread and was wondering what your assessments of it were. I imagine that most JFK researchers dismiss it out of hand but I would recommend reading the article in which it was proposed and consider the credentials of its author Luis Alvarez winner of the 1968 Nobel Prize in physics among other distinctions. John Costella this guy ain’t.

Jet splatter theory:

http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk...8_4_Alvarez.pdf

Alvarez bios:

http://nobelprize.org/physics/laureates/19...lvarez-bio.html

http://www.nobel-winners.com/Physics/luis_...er_alvarez.html

Hi Len,

Honestly -- I'm NOT under the influence of cold meds on this post!

I do not dismiss the jet effect, but I do not necessarily subscribe to it, either. (How is that for an evasive position!?)

There are several principles of physics involved in considering the jet effect, but the main ones being Conservation of Energy and Conservation of Angular Momentum. Newton's second law of motion (for every action, there is an equal but opposite reaction) creeps in to the explanation as well. These are, of course, valid and demonstrable principles of physics. The question is not with the principles involved, but are they being applied correctly to the situation at hand. A secondary question revolves around the completeness of the data set used to create the theory.

So...

Those elements that favor the Jet Effect:

1 - Conservation of energy and angular momentum indicates that the bullet's energy had to, in effect, go somewhere.

2 - If the "jet" we see is, in essence, "forward and right" then the compensatory reaction would be "back and left"

3 - Some test shots fired into an object did show jet effect behavior was possible.

Those elements that call into question the Jet Effect:

1 - The assumption that gave rise to the jet effect is the concept of the ballistic pendulum. The ballistic pendulum's motion is partially restricted in one axis (negative z-axis) and is largely unrestricted in the other two. This is not necessarily consistent with firing into a human skull, which is motion damped in all directions, but not entirely motion restricted in any. In other words, the model that gave rise to the idea may not be the best one for the situation.

2 - There are additional forces that are not accounted for in the theory. Neuro spasms are certainly possible, and virtually impossible to verify, measure, or replicate. The effect of the back brace is also not known.

3 - We do not truly know the angle or location of entry and exit of the headwound. There is confusion and debate on this issue. It makes a difference when considering angular momentum.

4 - The test for plausibility of the jet effect took place using mellons and packing tape. This has convinced me that the jet effect is possible when one shoots at mellons wrapped with packing tape. On the other hand, I'm not the least bit convinced that this is a plausible substitute for a human head. The nature of the materials, when under extreme forces and stress, may not be sufficiently similar to make a valid comparison. The "jet effect" could be exactly as described, but only when the materials involved exhibit certain characteristics...

On the other hand, while I do hold a degree in Physics, I'm not a Nobel-winning Ph.D. by any stretch of the imagination! :D

When I get some time, I'll try to write some more on the physics of this...

other factors to consider.

___________________

The films viewed on a static screen does NOT show what happened.

The motions are relative.

Kennedy's head never moved 'back'.

At most it remained stationary or ceased its forward movement for a period of time until the limousines back seat reached where his back was, at which time it(the back seat), as it(the back seat) was moving forwards, propelled Kennedy forward.

His head at this time remained relatively stationary until it swiveled on the neck to where it was at maximum distance from the body, and struck the head rest, rebounded and followed the rest of the /body/limousine.

Apart from this, at first it was slowly tilting forward and swiveling towards Jackie. Then it rapidly dipped right/ forward, which may be a right movement till it struck the raised shoulder and was deflected forward. (it also moved downwards slightly in relation to the position it had prior to the headshot)

It rebounded continued in this position for about 1 or two frames, and then appears to have a second set of forces applied and went through the motions that have become known as "back and to the left".

Other forces to consider.

The compressed seat springs released from compressive forces.

Natural muscular adjustments from habits gained in riding in a car that are suspended at the time of neural damage.

The limousine had not only been slowing (which would compress seat springs) it also was beginning to drift away from the left curb. This drift was corrected (and the accelerator may have been tapped and then released, and/or the head struck a second time.)

Knock down power of a high speed slug:

This can be compared to the slow speed impact of a sledge hammer.

(To me at this time it looks like two strikes closely spaced.)

This shows the head in its location frame by frame

There are other factors as well that must be considered in a whole-istic approach.

Not Alvarez nor David, presented the full picture of the US army experiments in the late 40's.

A reading of it at the site

( http://history.amedd.army.mil/booksdocs/ww...tcs/default.htm ) gives this.

Based on such a reading these statements are shown to be partial.

_______________

The closed system here is the skull enveloped by tissue in a bag of skin.

This has been ruptured. Forces direct ejected matter through these ruptures.

Forces that drive the eruption are more complex than a simple consideration of explosive cavitation.

The body as a whole must be considered.

This body consists of a trunk wrapped in an inflexible brace.

In this trunk enveloped by this brace is a large cavity filled with air (commonly known as lungs) that has direct connections. or open channels, to the ruptured skull through the mouth nose throat system.

There are secondary channels that may appear to be closed but in fact, when considering solidity, the spine enters through a hole beween which, and the lungs, are elastic tissues.

This air sack has the air in it rapidly compressed, and of course this pressure must go somewhere.

OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

In addition there are other forces to consider.

______________

Jackie had a restraining hand on John, pulling him towards herself(left).

______________

The limousine does a number of things when accelerating, or even just changing speed. You can notice some of these when just disengaging the clutch whether manually or automatically.

...........................

The drive forces are transmitted through the drive shaft and the differential, and the rear axle to the wheel tyres road.

Various torques come into play that determine tilt and twist of the chassis in which the bodies of the passengers are placed.

This can be experienced as above and by tapping the accelerator and or engaging disengaging the clutch.

Further:

careful analysis of the films reveal the front wheel moving up and down as the various weights of passengers shift, bounce on seat springs. This movement further contributes to other movements and so on.

_____________________

and on top of these are other forces:

The engine is very powerful and the limousine very heavy.

The engine, without even engaging the clutch to drive the transmission, imparts a degree of torque to the chassis. Lifting the foot off the accelerator or depressing it even slightly can change the RPM of the engine dranmatically, changing the degree of force applied to the chassis. (in idle, gun the engine, easily seen in a small car, and you can see this very clearly.)

_______________

one braces against wind... remove the muscular control and the force of the wind determines the result.

_______________

All these forces (and no doubt others) go together to, in varying degree at different times, cause the movements.

A creful analysis should be able to explain the movements and from this one may derive information as to direction and timing of the contributing factor of 'the shot/s'.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The question of the “jet splatter” theory came up in the Zapruder thread and was wondering what your assessments of it were. I imagine that most JFK researchers dismiss it out of hand but I would recommend reading the article in which it was proposed and consider the credentials of its author Luis Alvarez winner of the 1968 Nobel Prize in physics among other distinctions. John Costella this guy ain’t.

Jet splatter theory:

http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk...8_4_Alvarez.pdf

Alvarez bios:

http://nobelprize.org/physics/laureates/19...lvarez-bio.html

http://www.nobel-winners.com/Physics/luis_...er_alvarez.html

Hi Len,

Honestly -- I'm NOT under the influence of cold meds on this post!

I do not dismiss the jet effect, but I do not necessarily subscribe to it, either. (How is that for an evasive position!?)

There are several principles of physics involved in considering the jet effect, but the main ones being Conservation of Energy and Conservation of Angular Momentum. Newton's second law of motion (for every action, there is an equal but opposite reaction) creeps in to the explanation as well. These are, of course, valid and demonstrable principles of physics. The question is not with the principles involved, but are they being applied correctly to the situation at hand. A secondary question revolves around the completeness of the data set used to create the theory.

So...

Those elements that favor the Jet Effect:

1 - Conservation of energy and angular momentum indicates that the bullet's energy had to, in effect, go somewhere.

2 - If the "jet" we see is, in essence, "forward and right" then the compensatory reaction would be "back and left"

3 - Some test shots fired into an object did show jet effect behavior was possible.

Those elements that call into question the Jet Effect:

1 - The assumption that gave rise to the jet effect is the concept of the ballistic pendulum. The ballistic pendulum's motion is partially restricted in one axis (negative z-axis) and is largely unrestricted in the other two. This is not necessarily consistent with firing into a human skull, which is motion damped in all directions, but not entirely motion restricted in any. In other words, the model that gave rise to the idea may not be the best one for the situation.

2 - There are additional forces that are not accounted for in the theory. Neuro spasms are certainly possible, and virtually impossible to verify, measure, or replicate. The effect of the back brace is also not known.

3 - We do not truly know the angle or location of entry and exit of the headwound. There is confusion and debate on this issue. It makes a difference when considering angular momentum.

4 - The test for plausibility of the jet effect took place using mellons and packing tape. This has convinced me that the jet effect is possible when one shoots at mellons wrapped with packing tape. On the other hand, I'm not the least bit convinced that this is a plausible substitute for a human head. The nature of the materials, when under extreme forces and stress, may not be sufficiently similar to make a valid comparison. The "jet effect" could be exactly as described, but only when the materials involved exhibit certain characteristics...

On the other hand, while I do hold a degree in Physics, I'm not a Nobel-winning Ph.D. by any stretch of the imagination! :)

When I get some time, I'll try to write some more on the physics of this...

other factors to consider.

___________________

The films viewed on a static screen does NOT show what happened.

The motions are relative.

Kennedy's head never moved 'back'.

At most it remained stationary or ceased its forward movement for a period of time until the limousines back seat reached where his back was, at which time it(the back seat), as it(the back seat) was moving forwards, propelled Kennedy forward.

His head at this time remained relatively stationary until it swiveled on the neck to where it was at maximum distance from the body, and struck the head rest, rebounded and followed the rest of the /body/limousine.

Apart from this, at first it was slowly tilting forward and swiveling towards Jackie. Then it rapidly dipped right/ forward, which may be a right movement till it struck the raised shoulder and was deflected forward. (it also moved downwards slightly in relation to the position it had prior to the headshot)

It rebounded continued in this position for about 1 or two frames, and then appears to have a second set of forces applied and went through the motions that have become known as "back and to the left".

Other forces to consider.

The compressed seat springs released from compressive forces.

Natural muscular adjustments from habits gained in riding in a car that are suspended at the time of neural damage.

The limousine had not only been slowing (which would compress seat springs) it also was beginning to drift away from the left curb. This drift was corrected (and the accelerator may have been tapped and then released, and/or the head struck a second time.)

Knock down power of a high speed slug:

This can be compared to the slow speed impact of a sledge hammer.

(To me at this time it looks like two strikes closely spaced.)

This shows the head in its location frame by frame

There are other factors as well that must be considered in a whole-istic approach.

Not Alvarez nor David, presented the full picture of the US army experiments in the late 40's.

A reading of it at the site

( http://history.amedd.army.mil/booksdocs/ww...tcs/default.htm ) gives this.

Based on such a reading these statements are shown to be partial.

_______________

The closed system here is the skull enveloped by tissue in a bag of skin.

This has been ruptured. Forces direct ejected matter through these ruptures.

Forces that drive the eruption are more complex than a simple consideration of explosive cavitation.

The body as a whole must be considered.

This body consists of a trunk wrapped in an inflexible brace.

In this trunk enveloped by this brace is a large cavity filled with air (commonly known as lungs) that has direct connections. or open channels, to the ruptured skull through the mouth nose throat system.

There are secondary channels that may appear to be closed but in fact, when considering solidity, the spine enters through a hole beween which, and the lungs, are elastic tissues.

This air sack has the air in it rapidly compressed, and of course this pressure must go somewhere.

OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

In addition there are other forces to consider.

______________

Jackie had a restraining hand on John, pulling him towards herself(left).

______________

The limousine does a number of things when accelerating, or even just changing speed. You can notice some of these when just disengaging the clutch whether manually or automatically.

...........................

The drive forces are transmitted through the drive shaft and the differential, and the rear axle to the wheel tyres road.

Various torques come into play that determine tilt and twist of the chassis in which the bodies of the passengers are placed.

This can be experienced as above and by tapping the accelerator and or engaging disengaging the clutch.

Further:

careful analysis of the films reveal the front wheel moving up and down as the various weights of passengers shift, bounce on seat springs. This movement further contributes to other movements and so on.

_____________________

and on top of these are other forces:

The engine is very powerful and the limousine very heavy.

The engine, without even engaging the clutch to drive the transmission, imparts a degree of torque to the chassis. Lifting the foot off the accelerator or depressing it even slightly can change the RPM of the engine dranmatically, changing the degree of force applied to the chassis. (in idle, gun the engine, easily seen in a small car, and you can see this very clearly.)

_______________

one braces against wind... remove the muscular control and the force of the wind determines the result.

_______________

All these forces (and no doubt others) go together to, in varying degree at different times, cause the movements.

A creful analysis should be able to explain the movements and from this one may derive information as to direction and timing of the contributing factor of 'the shot/s'.

The photo Jack posted seems to me to support the notion of a 'to the right' initial head snap. See the shadow on his raised right shoulder.

Also it gives a good indication of the direction of the main explosive eruption.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Kennedy's head never moved 'back'.

Greetings John. I gather you intend to post further on this topic and I am looking forward to you tying it all together into a final conclusion. I wonder if, at some point on this thread, you might comment on this article by Ken Rahn:

http://karws.gso.uri.edu/JFK/Scientific_to..._head_shot.html

I read Alvarez' paper, Josiah Thompson's book and Sturdivan's HSCA testimony. I then assumed, since Sturdivan's army films seemed to debunk the Alvarez theory, that we were back to the claims of Josiah Thompson (guided by physicist William Hoffman). Hoffman and Thompson measured the rate of accelleration of JFK's backward movement immediately after Z313 and found it to be above 100 feet per second per second. Since gravity causes an accelleration of only 32? feet per second per second, They concluded that this would eliminate a neuromuscular reaction as the cause.

I believe it was Thompson's book that motivated Alvarez to look into the matter (Paul Hoch, a JFK researcher who was a student of Alvarez at the time, was also a friend of Thompson). Alvarez also eliminated a neuromuscular reaction and instead came up with the Jet Effect theory, and conducted his famous melon experiment to back up his theory. But he did not address Thompson's findings about the rate of acceleration or, if he did, he kept his findings to himself.

In the article linked above, Ken Rahn claims to be debunking Thompson's conclusions, but I confess I do not follow what he is saying about rates of accelleration and I'm sure I am only one who would be eternally grateful if you could help clear it up as you proceed on this thread.

Re your statement that "Kennedy's head never moved 'back'. " is it possible to measure the limo's rate of accelleration and determine if that was the cause? Recall that Alvarez said he had eliminated this possibility.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Kennedy's head never moved 'back'.

Greetings John. I gather you intend to post further on this topic and I am looking forward to you tying it all together into a final conclusion. I wonder if, at some point on this thread, you might comment on this article by Ken Rahn:

http://karws.gso.uri.edu/JFK/Scientific_to..._head_shot.html

I read Alvarez' paper, Josiah Thompson's book and Sturdivan's HSCA testimony. I then assumed, since Sturdivan's army films seemed to debunk the Alvarez theory, that we were back to the claims of Josiah Thompson (guided by physicist William Hoffman). Hoffman and Thompson measured the rate of accelleration of JFK's backward movement immediately after Z313 and found it to be above 100 feet per second per second. Since gravity causes an accelleration of only 32? feet per second per second, They concluded that this would eliminate a neuromuscular reaction as the cause.

I believe it was Thompson's book that motivated Alvarez to look into the matter (Paul Hoch, a JFK researcher who was a student of Alvarez at the time, was also a friend of Thompson). Alvarez also eliminated a neuromuscular reaction and instead came up with the Jet Effect theory, and conducted his famous melon experiment to back up his theory. But he did not address Thompson's findings about the rate of acceleration or, if he did, he kept his findings to himself.

In the article linked above, Ken Rahn claims to be debunking Thompson's conclusions, but I confess I do not follow what he is saying about rates of accelleration and I'm sure I am only one who would be eternally grateful if you could help clear it up as you proceed on this thread.

Re your statement that "Kennedy's head never moved 'back'. " is it possible to measure the limo's rate of accelleration and determine if that was the cause? Recall that Alvarez said he had eliminated this possibility.

Hi Raymond, I'm glad there is interest.

My post is a continuation of 'a work in progress' started perhaps a year ago. I noted Frank's interesting post and just jotted down some thoughts. It's turned into a continuation of an earlier 'head movements' thread.

The point in relation to Len's thread, I suppose, is the observstion that Alvarez merely restated in part some conclusions that also exist in a very comprehensive 1940's study by the US army. The US Army study appears very comprehensive involving highspeed films (1900 fps) of various scenarios, not involving melons, but cats and dogs.

Various sized and shaped projectiles of various materials and different speeds are fired at various objects and films, and high speed xrays are taken. Measurements and autopsies are made.

Force transmissions through, bone, through muscle, through liquid, through cavities, through man made alternatives such as gel and water of various densities, through metals and slabs of meat.

Various ways of displaying sound transmissions etc etc are made.

A careful read with a study of the images gives an understanding of wound ballistics of which the jet effect is a part. Read it, it's wort it. Then cross referencing to a comprehensive study of real battlefield woundings on the same site.

__________

When I say 'the head never moved back' it must be considered in context. The image above showing the head positions frame by frame in real space, not on a static screen, clearly shows that there is possibly only one frame when the head could posssibly be said to be behind the place it was the moment before, thus the head was always moving forward except momentarily when it was stationary (or posssibly moving 'back'. The impression when viewing this on a STATIC screen is of a violent back movement.

To properly understand the movements this must first be understood.

THEN one must consider the forces that could contribute to movements.

Here I've tried to list a number of them.

As this is a work in progress I'm also interested to see what conclusions (if any) come out of it.

I think I'll revive the old post* and as it involved many images (btw I've noticed a number of people running out of image space, those who don't know can go to 'my controls' and go to 'manage my attachments' and delete as required to regain space) I'll review/update it first and then link to it from here.

I've looked at the first page of the site you recommend. It seems likely I should read the lot once I've reached something that needs confirmation. In the meantime I'd appreciate ANY input, pro con is all the same to me, anything that helps overall in getting it right.

* may take a few days as at the moment I'm engrossed in 'skull curvatures'

Edited by John Dolva
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
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...