• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Cont: JFK Conspiracy Theories VI: Lyndon Johnson's Revenge

Status
Not open for further replies.
I recall you posting a YouTube video. Nothing about a source to any scientific published peer-reviewed paper. Not even an abstract. You appear to have a serious double-standard: anything you post is beyond reproach, anything we post is undoubtedly unproven for whatever reason happens to be handy at the moment. Paywall? I remind you you cited a supposed statement by Sweet from a book by Fiester - to verify she said that, one has to purchase the book, doesn't one? Granted, the YouTube video of a sponge getting shot by a bullet you cited was free, but not a scientific study. :)

Hank

The old CT double standard. This has been continuous since manifesto started posting again. I don't know what behavior existed before, but now the double standard exists.
When shown five ways to Sunday how the dicta-belt had been soundly refuted by modern science, manifesto keeps trotting out his opinion of 95 % probability with P:10000 (or some such probability)when in reality there is no open mike anywhere close to where it needs to be.
 
Is it your own eye-balling or someone else’s?

Everyone who studies the Z film. Open up a frame by frame and see for yourself.

Nothing here on delay time of decerebrate reflexes. Why are you quoting text in support for your claims that doesn’t answer my question?

What part of "sudden" Opisthotonos is confusing to you?

Sudden.

Not my words. This is from neurologists and pathologists.

I'm snipping your gorilla math because it's nonsense. Bullets do not throw people around like you're claiming.

Here are snippets from Alfred Oliver's testimony to the Rockefeller Commission. Oliver is a wound ballistics scientist.

"Q. What is your opinion, based upon the expertise that you have acquired in these 18 years at the Edgewood Arsenal in wound ballistics, with respect to the question of the direction from which the bullet came that struck the President in the head?

A. Well, the President in 313, the head appears to have moved slightly forward from the previous frame. Now, I say appears, because unless you measured this precisely you don't know. But it appears to have moved slightly.

And this would not be inconsistent with the momentum of the bullet being transferred to the head. Whereas I said a bullet cannot knock a person down or move a body in any violent way, it could conceivably move the head a little bit. We fired at human skulls filled with gelatin sitting on the table, and they would roll off the table. And this apparent side movement of the head is in the correct direction if the bullet came from the book depository."


...

"Now, most of the movement you see of the President moving backwards and his body moving sideward I believe is a neuromuscular reaction.

Another factor that could be involved is acceleration of the car. I have no idea of when the car started to accelerate. But at any rate, it is typical of animals or humans struck on the head to have a violent muscular reaction to it. And this is what is appears to me. Certainly the bullet didn't knock him backwards and sideways. This was, I think a neuromuscular reaction."


...

"Q. Have you ever seen an instance in which an animal body, from the impact of the bullet itself, thrust violently in the direction away from the gunner?

A. Never.

Q. Do you have an opinion, then, based upon your work in this field over the years, as to whether President Kennedy's body would have moved in the fashion that it did after the fatal shot in the head, that movement being a consequence of the impact of the bullet?

A. As a result of the momentum imparted to the body by the bullet?

Q. Yes.

A. No, it wouldn't.

Q. Are you saying --

A. The President weights a lot more than a 100 pound goat, and if a bullet wouldn't move a 100 pound goat it isn't going to move the President. This just doesn't happen."


Want more?

Duncan MacPherson, author, Bullet Penetration: Modeling the Dynamics and the Incapacitation Resulting From Wound Trauma

"Q: It is common knowledge that, as captured by Abraham Zapruder, President Kennedy's head and upper torso lurch energetically immediately following the explosion of his head. Could this movement have been caused by the directly transferred momentum of a bullet? That is, can a bullet "push" somebody like that?

A: No, and no. The movement of a body due to bullet momentum cannot be greater than the movement of the same body if it was holding the gun that fired the bullet. This is a result of elementary physics and is not disputed by anyone who understands physics. The major frustrating feature of the Kennedy assassination phenomenon is the willingness of people to pretend to talk authoritatively on subjects they know absolutely nothing about, especially things related to firearms. This body recoil is one favorite. Another is the "puff of smoke from the grassy knoll"; the theory here seems to be that someone shot Kennedy with a flintlock.

Q: If the effects observed on the Zapruder film are not the result of a direct "push" by a bullet, what could account for JFK's movements?

A: In general, body movement in response to nervous system trauma is a result of contractions in body muscles. This is related to movements of your leg when a doctor raps you on the knee with his little mallet; your leg moves because a nerve induces a muscle contraction, not because it was driven into motion by the force of the tiny rap with the mallet. The slightly peculiar location of Kennedy's arms after the 399 bullet impact is known as Thorburn's position, after a description by Dr. William Thorburn in an 1889 paper on injuries to the area of the spinal chord damaged by bullet 399. In addition to this effect, simulations have shown that bullet strikes to the skull that result in blowing out a significant hole upon exit result in skull recoil towards the bullet entry direction. The dynamics of this are a little complicated, but are more related to the pressure inside the skull cavity created by the bullet passage than to effects directly related to the bullet movement. The dynamics of this kind of impact were demonstrated independently in testing by Dr. Luis Alvarez and by Dr. John K. Lattimer et al."
 
Everyone who studies the Z film. Open up a frame by frame and see for yourself.



What part of "sudden" Opisthotonos is confusing to you?

Sudden.

Not my words. This is from neurologists and pathologists.

I'm snipping your gorilla math because it's nonsense. Bullets do not throw people around like you're claiming.

Here are snippets from Alfred Oliver's testimony to the Rockefeller Commission. Oliver is a wound ballistics scientist.

"Q. What is your opinion, based upon the expertise that you have acquired in these 18 years at the Edgewood Arsenal in wound ballistics, with respect to the question of the direction from which the bullet came that struck the President in the head?

A. Well, the President in 313, the head appears to have moved slightly forward from the previous frame. Now, I say appears, because unless you measured this precisely you don't know. But it appears to have moved slightly.

And this would not be inconsistent with the momentum of the bullet being transferred to the head. Whereas I said a bullet cannot knock a person down or move a body in any violent way, it could conceivably move the head a little bit. We fired at human skulls filled with gelatin sitting on the table, and they would roll off the table. And this apparent side movement of the head is in the correct direction if the bullet came from the book depository."


...

"Now, most of the movement you see of the President moving backwards and his body moving sideward I believe is a neuromuscular reaction.

Another factor that could be involved is acceleration of the car. I have no idea of when the car started to accelerate. But at any rate, it is typical of animals or humans struck on the head to have a violent muscular reaction to it. And this is what is appears to me. Certainly the bullet didn't knock him backwards and sideways. This was, I think a neuromuscular reaction."


...

"Q. Have you ever seen an instance in which an animal body, from the impact of the bullet itself, thrust violently in the direction away from the gunner?

A. Never.

Q. Do you have an opinion, then, based upon your work in this field over the years, as to whether President Kennedy's body would have moved in the fashion that it did after the fatal shot in the head, that movement being a consequence of the impact of the bullet?

A. As a result of the momentum imparted to the body by the bullet?

Q. Yes.

A. No, it wouldn't.

Q. Are you saying --

A. The President weights a lot more than a 100 pound goat, and if a bullet wouldn't move a 100 pound goat it isn't going to move the President. This just doesn't happen."


Want more?

Duncan MacPherson, author, Bullet Penetration: Modeling the Dynamics and the Incapacitation Resulting From Wound Trauma

"Q: It is common knowledge that, as captured by Abraham Zapruder, President Kennedy's head and upper torso lurch energetically immediately following the explosion of his head. Could this movement have been caused by the directly transferred momentum of a bullet? That is, can a bullet "push" somebody like that?

A: No, and no. The movement of a body due to bullet momentum cannot be greater than the movement of the same body if it was holding the gun that fired the bullet. This is a result of elementary physics and is not disputed by anyone who understands physics. The major frustrating feature of the Kennedy assassination phenomenon is the willingness of people to pretend to talk authoritatively on subjects they know absolutely nothing about, especially things related to firearms. This body recoil is one favorite. Another is the "puff of smoke from the grassy knoll"; the theory here seems to be that someone shot Kennedy with a flintlock.

Q: If the effects observed on the Zapruder film are not the result of a direct "push" by a bullet, what could account for JFK's movements?

A: In general, body movement in response to nervous system trauma is a result of contractions in body muscles. This is related to movements of your leg when a doctor raps you on the knee with his little mallet; your leg moves because a nerve induces a muscle contraction, not because it was driven into motion by the force of the tiny rap with the mallet. The slightly peculiar location of Kennedy's arms after the 399 bullet impact is known as Thorburn's position, after a description by Dr. William Thorburn in an 1889 paper on injuries to the area of the spinal chord damaged by bullet 399. In addition to this effect, simulations have shown that bullet strikes to the skull that result in blowing out a significant hole upon exit result in skull recoil towards the bullet entry direction. The dynamics of this are a little complicated, but are more related to the pressure inside the skull cavity created by the bullet passage than to effects directly related to the bullet movement. The dynamics of this kind of impact were demonstrated independently in testing by Dr. Luis Alvarez and by Dr. John K. Lattimer et al."

Good post, but I'm afraid that it will be hand waved away by manifesto, just like all the rest of the evidence that has been presented to him i.e. Cite, Explain and Discuss;)
 
Good post, but I'm afraid that it will be hand waved away by manifesto, just like all the rest of the evidence that has been presented to him i.e. Cite, Explain and Discuss;)

I'm just curious if he can counter this with any wound ballistics experts that actually believe the "back and to the left" motion was caused by a gunshot.
 
I'm just curious if he can counter this with any wound ballistics experts that actually believe the "back and to the left" motion was caused by a gunshot.

There is an even more fundamental question for manifesto - does he believe there is convincing evidence that JFK was shot? And if so, why does he believe this?
 
I'm just curious if he can counter this with any wound ballistics experts that actually believe the "back and to the left" motion was caused by a gunshot.

Doubtful, but he will come up with all sorts of CT nonsense, corroborating back and left with a gunshot wound. Although the Fist and only shot from the back barely moved JFK's head, but another will throw it back maybe 12".
 
The old CT double standard. This has been continuous since manifesto started posting again. I don't know what behavior existed before, but now the double standard exists.
When shown five ways to Sunday how the dicta-belt had been soundly refuted by modern science, manifesto keeps trotting out his opinion of 95 % probability with P:10000 (or some such probability)when in reality there is no open mike anywhere close to where it needs to be.

He loves to throw around numbers as if he knows what he's talking about, and yet he has clearly been overwhelmed by this research paper on the head shot:

https://www.heliyon.com/article/e00603#Declarations

Here's a sample from the paper:

Nevertheless, assuming in the case under consideration that the projectile collision occurred near the center of the target (thus not imparting torque), it is possible to consider the interaction in terms of a linear impulse, Jx, which in one dimension for the CM frame is given as [e.g., 19, p. 211]

Jx≡∫0tFxdt′=MΔVx(t),(1)

where t is time, Fx is the scalar force along the x direction of the projectile (bullet) motion, M≡mP+mT is the combined mass of the system (mP and mT being the projectile and target masses, respectively), and ΔVx is the finite change in velocity of the CM. In this case one may assume that mP≪mT for simplicity; thus M≈mT (i.e., the mass of the human head). Equation (1) applies to the bullet passage through an entire head, but this may be broken down into three separate impulses brought on by (1) the skull entrance, (2) passage through the skull cavity (i.e., through the brain), and (3) skull exit. For simplicity, any resistance presented by the hair and scalp is assumed to be of second order and thus negligible [e.g., 20].

Equation (1) is therefore rewritten as

MΔVx(t3)=∫t0t1F1dt+∫t1t2F2dt+∫t2t3F3dt′

All of that stuff is beyond me numbers-wise but they take time to explain just about every aspect of the relevant Zapruder Film frames and how they came to their conclusion...because they're scientists.
 
He loves to throw around numbers as if he knows what he's talking about, and yet he has clearly been overwhelmed by this research paper on the head shot:

https://www.heliyon.com/article/e00603#Declarations

Here's a sample from the paper:





All of that stuff is beyond me numbers-wise but they take time to explain just about every aspect of the relevant Zapruder Film frames and how they came to their conclusion...because they're scientists.
Equations, differentials and integrals are all part of my profession, so they didn't blow me away but had to read them carefully so as to not miss a step, but that was a great paper on how bullets affect motion of the shot target, in this case JFK. What they have accomplished is to mathematically construct the forces applied and transferred. I'm not sure if manifesto ever "agreed" that there was a shot from the rear, but the conclusions fit neatly the observations, head forward slightly. But when he throws in a nonexistent shot from the from "pushing JFK's head back and left maybe a foot, then that is unrealistic, but he won't agree.
 
- A .30-30 rifle has a muzzle velocity of 2200 ft/second and fires a 170 grain bullet weighing 0.024 pounds. Almost the same as a Carcano.

Agree

- The distance between the picket fence and the limo was 30 yards which gives a velocity of 2100 ft/sec when hitting the target = momentum on impact of 50ft-lb/sec.

Agree

- If using a soft point hunting bullet which typically mushrooms on impact, a reasonable transfer of momentum would be, lets say, 80% = 40 ft-lb/sec

First, I disagree with the 80%; its more like 40%, but for argument's sake, until I do some calculations, I'll let you have your 80%

However, the next bit is where you completely fail to understand the physics of terminal ballistics.

The bullet does not impart all that energy to the whole head, it imparts the vast majority of that energy only to the small area it impacts, being approximately the cross sectional area (CSA) of the bullet diameter, that is why it PENETRATES the head; that is why the 6.5x52 Carcano bullet only pushed JFK's head forward fractionally when it hit his head from behind.

A high velocity bullet hitting someone in the head does not have the same effect as a baseball bat hitting someone in the head. The baseball bat, even though its velocity will be much lower, it has VASTLY more area in contact with the head. A 3030 bullet has a CSA of 38mm2, its tiny.

Subsonic ammunition puts a large dent in an empty paint can and it is knocked back a few feet. This happens because the subsonic ammunition loses most of its energy in the impact. However, supersonic ammunition, such as a round fired from my Savage M12 (.243, about 3000 fps) punches straight through and the can moves less than a foot... almost all of the energy is retained, and most of the energy that is lost (not very much) is in penetration. Fill the tin with water, and now we have a different story. The bullet causes cavitation in the water (and loses a tremendous amount of its energy in doing so) but the extra mass of the water makes the tin much heavier, so it still doesn't shoot backwards several feet, in fact it hardly moves.

About the only gun that could have caused JFK's head to move backwards to any significant degree would be something with a huge calibre and a low to medium velocity, such as a 12 gauge shotgun firing a slug. (appriox 70 cal, and around 390 to 450 grains, at 1800 fps). The sound of that going off would have been obvious to anyone anywhere near it (BOOM!) and there is no effective way to suppress it.
 
Last edited:
And what's your pathetic excuse for not reading this?

https://www.heliyon.com/article/e00603#Declarations

No pay wall, and it explains the physics and physiology behind why JFK's head shot backwards from the rear head wound.

It says you're wrong.
Cite the relevant info. Explain. Argue for its veracity. I neither can or should do it for you.

I believe I have informed you and your friends of this a couple of hundred times so far. What is it that you do not grasp? Explain and I lead you through it, step by step.
 
Cite the relevant info. Explain. Argue for its veracity. I neither can or should do it for you.

I believe I have informed you and your friends of this a couple of hundred times so far. What is it that you do not grasp? Explain and I lead you through it, step by step.

On the contrary, I’ve read just about everything there is.

And, it ain’t pretty.
LOL. What part of it are you ;) unable to grasp?
 
Everyone who studies the Z film. Open up a frame by frame and see for yourself.



What part of "sudden" Opisthotonos is confusing to you?
The part that defines it in number form. How ”sudden” is the decerebrate reflex according to your source? 1.0 second? 0.5 second? 0.3 second? 2 seconds? 1 hour?

”Sudden”, could mean just about anything.
 
The part that defines it in number form. How ”sudden” is the decerebrate reflex according to your source? 1.0 second? 0.5 second? 0.3 second? 2 seconds? 1 hour?

”Sudden”, could mean just about anything.

There is no set time for a reaction like this. Did you think there was?

As it stands, several qualified neurologists and pathologists have found a neurological reaction to be a reasonable and likely explanation for Kennedy's movements.

Sorry to have to burst another bubble for you.
 
Cite the relevant info. Explain. Argue for its veracity. I neither can or should do it for you.

I believe I have informed you and your friends of this a couple of hundred times so far. What is it that you do not grasp? Explain and I lead you through it, step by step.

What part of read the material don't you get?, we can't do that for you. Unless you read the material, it is useless for any discussion to occur, because you will not have the relevant information to discuss. Now whether or not you tell us "couple of hundred times so far" a thousand times, you still need to read the material.
How can you possibly think you will be capable of leading us through it step by step, when you haven't the foggiest clue what is contained in the study. You make no sense as usual.
 
Last edited:
Your problem goes far deeper than a bloody sponge test that doesn't replicate the results of gunshot wounds to the head.

Your cited expert (Sherry Fiester) herself disagrees with the conclusions you draw. Specifically she claims that two specific claims that you endorse are myths:
http://sherryfiester.com/myths.html

  • Ear witnesses are reliable
  • The fatal head shot originated from the Grassy Knoll
She disagrees with both those contentions of yours. She claims they are both *myths*. Myths!

It's her contention - contrary to yours - that the shooter was on the south end of the overpass or on the far south knoll. You place the shooter almost 100 yards away, around the corner of the north end of the overpass, on the north knoll.
https://enemyofthetruth.wordpress.com/

Quoting Fiester: "So, if we know the shot came from the front, where is front? If you superimpose a protractor over a map of Dealey Plaza with the apex at the point where Kennedy received the head shot, at a ninety-degree angle to Zapruder’s location, and draw a line representative of the 115-degree turn relative to Zapruder, it becomes obvious “front” of Kennedy is not the Grassy Knoll. Front, for Kennedy, was the south end of the triple overpass and the adjacent parking lot on the opposite side of Dealey Plaza."

Even your own cited expert disagrees with your arguments!

Hilarious.

Hank


A good point. Manifesto reminds me of Robert Harris who liked to use Alvarez as an authoritative source while explaining that Alvarez was completely wrong and that Robert could interpret the data much better than the source he was quoting could.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom