why risk being accused of posting silly straw?
Cont: JFK Conspiracy Theories V: Five for Fighting
- Thread starter bknight
- Start date
- Status
why risk being accused of posting silly straw?
HSienzant
Philosopher
What's your explanation for it, and what's your best evidence for it?
'Not unusual' is not an explanation for the mechanism by which JFK's head moves backward. I'm looking for your explanation, and your evidence supporting it. If you have no idea why JFK's head moves backward, say that.
If you think it moves backward because of a shot from the front, say that. If you think it moves backward because of a shot from the side, say that. If you think it moves backward because of a shot from the rear, say that.
Saying 'not unusual' is neither an explanation or evidence, and not even enough information to deciper exactly what you're suggesting.
Hank
Last edited:
HSienzant
Philosopher
So no rebuttal to the facts presented.
And no answers for the questions asked.
Noted.
Hank
Last edited:
Elagabalus
Philosopher
- Joined
- Dec 23, 2013
- Messages
- 7,051
RoboTimbo
Hostile Nanobacon
If you're over your tantrum and done spitting out your mashed peas, try answering some of the innumerable questions you've so far crawled away from.
Must I be suggesting something? I think I initially implied I dont know ie I dont have an explanation hence I asked for one presuming it would be 'not unusual' per physics lest it imply multiple guns.
Dave Rogers
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through
I rolled a dice this morning. It came up 3. Do I need a detailed explanation of the exact mechanics of how it struck the ground, rolled and came to rest with the 3 face upwards, or is it simply the case that nothing unusual happened and therefore there's nothing that actually requires a detailed explanation?
So it is with Kennedy's movements after being shot; there's nothing unexpected about him happening to move in any direction, and certainly no reason to expect an overwhelming or even strong probability of his head recoiling in the direction of the bullet. If his head had moved back and to the right, or directly to the left, these would not be unusual movements either. The movement of Kennedy's head after being shot simply carries no information at all as to the direction of the shot.
Dave
HSienzant
Philosopher
Somehow we always end up with the JAQing crowd suggesting multiple guns.
Thanks, that's exactly what I thought you were trying to suggest with your initial post on this subject above.
Bubba, you have a history here of "Just Asking Questions" here, that somehow always suggest conspiracy.
For example:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=11147085&postcount=660
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=11069883&postcount=623
Hank
Last edited:
bknight
Master Poster
Full disclosure, I have never watched JFK.
[not my position]From what I have read, I believe Jim Garrison, DA incorrectly postulated that the head would move opposite the trajectory of a bullet. He believed the Zapruder film indicated a shot from the right front(perhaps the grassy knoll) and the head moved back and left.[/not my position]
The experts have studied animals shot in the head and the initial reaction is for the muscles to stiffen from the impact and thus you have back and left movement of JFK. The experts have got it correct the CT's don't understand or fail to comprehend the real nature of events, especially when those results disprove their novice ideas and beliefs.
[not my position]From what I have read, I believe Jim Garrison, DA incorrectly postulated that the head would move opposite the trajectory of a bullet. He believed the Zapruder film indicated a shot from the right front(perhaps the grassy knoll) and the head moved back and left.[/not my position]
The experts have studied animals shot in the head and the initial reaction is for the muscles to stiffen from the impact and thus you have back and left movement of JFK. The experts have got it correct the CT's don't understand or fail to comprehend the real nature of events, especially when those results disprove their novice ideas and beliefs.
Cosmic Yak
Philosopher
I'll be charitable and assume that your usual intellectually rigorous debating style is being dragged down into what we see here by the demands of posting on this forum.
Would you mind posting a link to an example of a learned debate, worthy of Aristotle, that you have had with conspiracy theorists? This will give us something to aim at.
HSienzant
Philosopher
You haven't missed much. You can count me among those who believe Oliver Stone got only two things correct in his movie, the date of the assassination and the victims.
He incorrectly postulated that the bullet would move in the same line as the trajectory of the bullet that struck JFK in the head, but the "back-and-to-the-left" theory predates the Clay Shaw trial put on by Garrison. The movie is wrong to put the "back-and-to-the-left" into Garrison's mouth. It's for the jury to decide what's pertinent in the viewing of the film. The state doesn't get to tell the jury what to look for or what it means.
You can read what actually transpired starting here: https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=1284#relPageId=96&tab=page
Yes. Many CTs argue for that, but they've done no studies, cited no experts, and simply argue that's the why it must have happened, citing their own understanding of how physics works.
Mark Lane was among the first to bring this up, in 1967 in his book RUSH TO JUDGMENT (two years before the Shaw trial). Lane wrote, on page 55 of the hard copy version:
By the time the fatal shot was fired, the limousine had reached a point on Elm Street alongside the knoll, which was to the right. When the bullet struck the President's head, as one can see from the photographs, he was thrown to his left and toward the rear of the limousine. How could the Commission explain the sudden violent move of the President's body directly to the left and to the rear ? So long as the Commission maintained that the bullet came almost directly from the rear, it implied that the laws of physics vacated in this instance, for the President did not fall forward.
They cite physics but that's not even the correct field of study. Fluid dynamics would be a more appropriate field of study to cite, but of course, Mark Lane and the CT posse couldn't believably cite their own understanding of fluid dynamics, and then they'd actually have to listen to some experts.
It's also important to note that about five different causes for the movement back has been cited, and the CTs never tell us how they eliminated the other four to settle on a gunshot from the right front being the cause.
Hank
Last edited:
CORed
Penultimate Amazing
Translation. When I discuss my silly ideas with other conspiracy theorists, we all tell each other how smart we are and nobody calls anybody else on their ********.
When I post here, everybody asks questions that I (or more specifically, the website or book I'm pulling everything from) can't answer and expects me to cite actual evidence to support my silly ideas.
Last edited:
Sandy McCroskey
Thinker
- Joined
- Jun 20, 2015
- Messages
- 188
Whatever moved JFK backward, starting in Zapruder frame 314, it wasn't the shot to the head, as his head moves *forward* immediately after the shot, which struck between frames 312 and 313.
I think you may have jumped the gun there Hank.
Or perhaps you're a little gun shy.
(just funnin ya a little there.)
Actually Hank, if I had said "lest it imply the impossible" instead of saying "lest it imply multiple guns" it would have meant roughly the same per what I had in mind. Thats why I said I dont have an explanation (or a theory or an axe to grind). I simply wanted to know the explanation for 'back and to the left'.
Thanks.
Their understanding of how physics work is of course based on Hollywood movies and not on any knowledge of how physics actually work. In Hollywood films you often see people thrown back etc., after being hit by a bullet. This is utter nonsense It would require very special circumstances for a bullet to knock someone backwards. Why? Because the energy, (Inertia), in the bullet would have to overcome the inertia in the person it struck. Given that bullets usually weigh less than a ounce, (Under 50 grams), and an adult human being weighs usually more than 40 kilos, (More than 80 lbs), the amount of energy required to overcome that inertia would be enormous and a bullet usually doesn't have anything like that force. One can illustrate this notion by hanging a carcass of a pig and firing bullets into it via a machine gun. It will barely move despite being hit by many bullets.
The same principles apply to Kennedy's head. The intertia in the head vastly exceeded the inertia in the bullet that struck Kennedy. So that the head movement proves little about where the bullet came from.
Basically people like Lane have accepted the cartoon physics of Hollywood movies has true and used it to erect a strawman. Personally I think the Head movements were largely the result of spastic movements of Kennedy's neck muscles produced by the bullet tearing through Kennedy's brain.
You have to get past idiotic Hollywood physics to realize that the head movements are not evidence of where the bullet(s) came from. Has for the head movements themselves, I suspect neck spasms caused by a bullet going through Kennedy's brain.
HSienzant
Philosopher
As it's a tough thing to replicate (nobody is exactly stepping forward to volunteer to be shot in the head), the explanations on the table will have to suffice. First off, consider that there are TWO reversals of motion in the Zapruder film, but the second is seen as unremarkable and not considered evidence of conspiracy - as that reversal happens when JFK rebounds off the back of the limo seat. The physics of that reversal is well known and readily accepted.
And secondly, although the refrain has always been "Back and to the Left", there's no evidence the body of JFK moves to the left at all. It appears that JFK, upon rebounding off the back seat, winds up no closer to Jackie than he was at the time of the head shot. So where's the evidence of movement to the left? It appears from here to be an illusion caused by JFK's leaning leftward toward JFK at the time of the headshot. JFK's leftward movement has always been *assumed*, not established.
So this backward motion has been explained in a number of ways:
1. As pointed out above by Sandy McCroskey, the head actually moves forward noticeably for one frame at the time of the impact of the bullet. This movement was discovered by Nobel Prize winning physicist Richard Feynman and discussed at length in David Lifton's book, BEST EVIDENCE.
2. The backward movement which starts only after the bullet has exited the head (and therefore cannot be due to the impact of the bullet, as the momentum would be transferred instantaneously) can be due to a neuromuscular reaction, as pointed out above by BKnight. This was tested by experiment using live goats and demonstrated in films shown to the Warren Commission.
3. The estimated mass carried forward by the cavitation of the head (times the speed pf the mass) is greater than the mass of the bullet (times the speed of the bullet) that struck the head. The physics of this exchange says, as I understand it, that the head should therefore move backward to maintain the stability of the system. This was determined by Nobel Prize winning physicist Luis Alvarez. This has been called "the Jet Effect".
4. The head can only go so far forward before it will reverse its motion. It appears JFK's chin is compressed pretty much as far as it can go into the chest by Zapruder frame 313. Like the physics of a basketball hitting a backboard and reversing its flight direction, JFK's head can be considered to be rebounding off the chest of JFK by Z-frame 313.
5. The rigid back brace held JFK upright, but prevented his body from moving forward too far. Once it reached the limits, it rebounded the body backward. This was mentioned by Tomtomkent above.
6. A bullet from somewhere to the front (not the knoll) caused the head to move backward. Let's examine this in detail:
(a) There's no evidence of a shooter in front of JFK, as there were a dozen men on the overpass directly in front of JFK at the time of the shooting, and none of them saw a shooter anywhere on the overpass.
(b) Further, there's no evidence of a shot striking JFK in the head from anywhere except from behind (as determined at the autopsy) and this finding was confirmed by neutral expert forensic pathologists who examined the extant autopsy materials in 1978 at the behest of the HSCA.
(c) There is also no damage evident to the skull from a shot at Z314, and no ejecta from a shot from the front.
(d) And all the fragments found anywhere that were large enough to be ballistically traceable where traceable to Oswald's weapon, so there's no evidence of a bullet fired from another weapon.
(e) The movement is too large to be caused by a bullet. It's not even close to the appropriate magnitude.
So it's my opinion this suggested explanation of a shooter striking JFK in the head from anywhere but the sixth floor southeast corner window of the Depository can be eliminated, as a shooter elsewhere in the plaza is the only one that has ZERO evidence in support, and no experts claiming this is what would happen. So I eliminate this explanation from consideration.
What explanations do you eliminate (if any) and why? Please be expansive in your response.
Thanks in advance.
Hank
Last edited:
HSienzant
Philosopher
Absolutely. The movement of JFK's head has a whole chapter (13: "JFK AND MOMENTUM - Hollywood's Conspiracy to Assassinate History", see" https://www.amazon.com/Insultingly-Stupid-Movie-Physics-Destructions/dp/1402210337 ) devoted to it in the book, Insultingly Stupid Movie Physics: Hollywood's Best Mistakes, Goofs and Flat-Out Destructions of the Basic Laws of the Universe by Tom Rogers.
It's really that stupid. Unfortunately, the "Back and to the Left" is pretty ingrained into the American psyche by conspiracy authors like Mark Lane and Oliver Stone's film, JFK, and most people are not about to let the facts confuse them any.
Hank
Last edited:
HSienzant
Philosopher
Not only that, but the expanding gasses of the gunpowder that expel the bullet out of the barrel of the weapon not only push the bullet forward, but they also push the rifle backward with the same force. A bullet that could knock a man down or backward a significant distance upon impact would likewise knock the shooter down or backward by the same amount. This simply doesn't happen in real life.
The actual force is enough to move the shooter's shoulder back an inch or two, and the bullet impact on the head would be therefore sufficient to move the head forward an inch or two --- and as pointed out by Sandy McCroskey above, that's *exactly* what we see in the Z-film between Zapruder frames 313 and 313.
Hank
Last edited:
HSienzant
Philosopher
ERRATA: Underlined should read Rockefeller Commission.
Here: http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/olivier_a.htm
Hank
- Status