<![CDATA[As a guest, you are not allowed to view links.
<a href="http://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php?action=register">Register</a> or <a href="http://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php?action=login">Login</a>]]> The subject line of this thread is a misnomer.
This Mythbusters episode had nothing to do with the JFK assassination.
They never mentioned "back and to the left."
They were taking on the Hollywood movies, especially Westerns, which would overdramatize someone being shot by showing him flying
backwards.
But in the end the actual tests proved that the impact of a bullet CAN thrust a body backwards.
The WC defenders like to claim that the impact of a bullet can not move a person's body in any direction.
But they themselves claim that a Mannlicher-Carcano bullet thrust JFK's head forward 2.3 inches in less
than half a Zapruder frame. It's called hypocrisy.
There is a huge difference between moving a body, and violently throwing a body. Something the Ct crowd seems to miss.
Of course a projectile can move a body. This movement is not going to be significant in a transiting shot where only .1-.3% of the kinetic energy is transferred to the target.
This is precisely why the violent back and to the left can not be contributed to a frontal shot. A transiting bullet would not have that kind of impact energy. Additionally this is also why the slight forward movement can be attributed to a bullet, as it is exactly the sort of subtle movement one would see.
When we add the blood spatter evidence to all this it becomes clear there was no shot from the front.
So, you think that 2.3 inches in 35 ms is not significant?
And show me this wounding where only .1-.3% of the kinetic energy is transferred to the target. We are talking about the head wound
and no one has suggested .1-.3% loss. You just pulled those numbers out of your ass.
Subtle? 2.3 inches in 35 ms?
The blood spatter evidence does not rule out a shot from the front. In fact a real blood spatter expert thinks it proves a shot from the front. If the shot came from behind why is the whole windshield not covered with blood. Why are the onlu two blood drops from Connally and none from Kennedy?
If the shot came from the front, why is there blood on the OUTSIDE of the windshield?
Do a little research Anthony and then come back and tell me that .1 to .3% is not correct.
You have proven time and again your lack of ballistic knowledge, like that crap telling me police dont use frangible bullets.
I assume you are talking about Sherry? How funny that her and I spent hours looking for blood analysis of a front shot with no success.
Who do you think you are kidding?
2.3" of movement in 35 ms is what you are relating to the forward head movement?
That is perfectly consistent with the shot entering the rear. I bet I can bump you in the back of the head, and move your head 2.3" in 35ms.
Show me and prove that there is blood on the outside of the windshield.
There was blood all over because the top of the head opened up and debris flew upwards and fell back down, but was also dispersed by the wind.
I asked you to back up your .1 to .3% loss of energy and you can't. You just made it up.
I don't make things up. You have already proven you know little of ballistics, so please if you can dispute my .1-.3% do so. I think you will find my transfer range conservative.
I have already done the work, but if you wish to challenge me I will give you the bullet specs. Sectional Density is :.328 Ballistic Coefficient is:.283 and velocity is 2165 FPS. All you have to do is calculate how much energy the bullet would lose, and this tells you how much energy the body absorbed by way of momentum.
A hint would be that it requires 30 Ft-Lbs of energy for the bullet to transit 1" of flesh and bone.
Now had one done much research at all one would find that Frazier tells us:
Mr. FRAZIER - There were blood and particles of flesh scattered
all over the hood, the windshield, in the front seat and all over the rear floor rugs, the jump seats, and over the rear seat, and down both sides of the side rails or tops of the doors of the car.
I do note no mention of the trunk.
Yet in the Clay Shaw Trial Frazier tells us:
"Q: Now, Mr. Frazier, other than the windshield of the automobile, could you tell us what particular examinations were conducted with other parts of this vehicle?
A: Yes, sir. The first examination which was made was of the exterior portions of the vehicle. We examined the outer surface of the hood, the grille area, both front fender areas, all the metal work on the outside of the automobile. The examination was for two purposes, to determine whether there were any bullets or other projectile impact areas on the outside of the car and also to note the presence of the foreign material deposited on it. We found blood and tissue all over the outside areas of the vehicle from the hood ornament, over the complete area of the hood,
on the outside of the windshield, also on the inside surface of the windshield, and all over the entire exterior portion of the car, that is, the side rails down both sides of the car, and of course considerable quantities inside the car and on the trunk lid area. We found however, no bullet holes or projectile marks.
Here he does mention the trunk.
I do agree the wind would have played a part.
There is still to this day, not a credible shred of evidence of a shot from the front. Not on film, not in the medical, and not in the ballistics.
I would also note that only forward spatter traveling in the direction of the bullet would have had the energy to advance in the wind and moving limo conditions to reach the HOOD ORNAMENT!
You need to learn how to read. Frazier testified to blood AND TISSUE all over the limo.
And his examination notes also point that out, but you don't know about those notes because you are
not a researcher. I didn't ask you to recite WC propaganda. I asked you to SHOW me the blood which YOU
claim is on the outside of the windshield. You can't. You won't.
