Zapruder film "fakery" and the ED Forum Kooks!

[Royell Storing]

  Hey John - Have you viewed the higher def Current Z Film(s) posted on You Tube? I have 1 that I prefer, and it clearly shows JFK being HIT with such force that he is PROPELLED BACKWARD into the backrest. JFK is hit with such force the he literally bounces off of the backrest and then falls to the (L) like a tree that has just been cut down.
                  We can argue the bona fides of the Current Z Film, but even hi def copies of that clearly display the impact of a Front (R) shot. The lower def Z Film copies are like watching anything on an old SD Broadcast/TV. Just think back to the stark difference between broadcast SD vs HD. This is why Bart Kamp continues gaining attention. He is posting better definition images. The Current Z Film images being posted on this Forum are outdated. Even the Z Film images that you are posting has all kinds of crappola consistently flying through it. That's a dead giveaway that this "material" dates way back.
                     

[John Corbett]

  Hey John - Have you viewed the higher def Current Z Film(s) posted on You Tube? I have 1 that I prefer, and it clearly shows JFK being HIT with such force that he is PROPELLED BACKWARD into the backrest. JFK is hit with such force the he literally bounces off of the backrest and then falls to the (L) like a tree that has just been cut down.
                  We can argue the bona fides of the Current Z Film, but even hi def copies of that clearly display the impact of a Front (R) shot. The lower def Z Film copies are like watching anything on an old SD Broadcast/TV. Just think back to the stark difference between broadcast SD vs HD. This is why Bart Kamp continues gaining attention. He is posting better definition images. The Current Z Film images being posted on this Forum are outdated. Even the Z Film images that you are posting has all kinds of crappola consistently flying through it. That's a dead giveaway that this "material" dates way back.
                     

Did you happen to notice where JFK hit the seat? It was on the far right side. That shoots down the claim he went "back and to the left". He was already leaning to his left when the bullet struck his head. From that left leaning position, he went straight back.

While impossible to prove, the most likely explanation for JFK's rearward movement is a neuro-muscular reaction to the massive brain trauma. Also a contributing to the rearward movement could be the so called jet effect caused by the force full ejection of matter from the front of the head propelling him backward. I don't think that force would be enough to cause the backward movement by itself, but it probably was a contributing factor.

What we can rule out is the force of the bullet driving JFK backward. Bullets are two small and don't have that much throw weight. They only transfer a small amount of momentum to the body being struck. I have shot empty aluminum cans with a .44 Magnum and it usually doesn't even knock the cans down. That's because the cans offer almost no resistance to the bullet. There's almost no momentum transfer. Bullets throwing human bodies around like rag dolls is a Hollywood invention done for visual impact. The first time that was done was in the movie Shane. The gunfighter Wilson (Jack Palance)* gunned down a sodbuster whom he had goaded into drawing on him. To create the effect, a rope was tied around the sodbusters waist and as Wilson fired the gun, the sodbuster was yanked backward in an unrealistic manner. Since then, that kind of reaction has become a Hollywood staple in gunfights.

*In the movie Shane, Jack Palance was billed as Walter Jack Palance, a name he kept for several years until dropping the Walter. He was nominated for Best Supporting Actor for his role in Shane. He didn't win for Shane but four decades later he was nominated for the same award for City Slickers and won the Oscar for that performance.

[Royell Storing]

Did you happen to notice where JFK hit the seat? It was on the far right side. That shoots down the claim he went "back and to the left". He was already leaning to his left when the bullet struck his head. From that left leaning position, he went straight back.

While impossible to prove, the most likely explanation for JFK's rearward movement is a neuro-muscular reaction to the massive brain trauma. Also a contributing to the rearward movement could be the so called jet effect caused by the force full ejection of matter from the front of the head propelling him backward. I don't think that force would be enough to cause the backward movement by itself, but it probably was a contributing factor.

What we can rule out is the force of the bullet driving JFK backward. Bullets are two small and don't have that much throw weight. They only transfer a small amount of momentum to the body being struck. I have shot empty aluminum cans with a .44 Magnum and it usually doesn't even knock the cans down. That's because the cans offer almost no resistance to the bullet. There's almost no momentum transfer. Bullets throwing human bodies around like rag dolls is a Hollywood invention done for visual impact. The first time that was done was in the movie Shane. The gunfighter Wilson (Jack Palance)* gunned down a sodbuster whom he had goaded into drawing on him. To create the effect, a rope was tied around the sodbusters waist and as Wilson fired the gun, the sodbuster was yanked backward in an unrealistic manner. Since then, that kind of reaction has become a Hollywood staple in gunfights.

*In the movie Shane, Jack Palance was billed as Walter Jack Palance, a name he kept for several years until dropping the Walter. He was nominated for Best Supporting Actor for his role in Shane. He didn't win for Shane but four decades later he was nominated for the same award for City Slickers and won the Oscar for that performance.

      You have No Idea what I am looking at. And then you assume that JFK was struck with a routine bullet.  "No soup for you"!

      I am extremely familiar with "Shane". "Torrey" and "Wilson" too. Howard Hughes knew what he was doing when he tried to buy that flick.

     Very telling that you would tie a Hollywood Movie into a discussion of the Current Z Film.

[John Corbett]

      You have No Idea what I am looking at.

On that we can agree.

 And then you assume that JFK was struck with a routine bullet.  "No soup for you"!

I wouldn't call the 6.5mm Carcano routine. It wasn't a commonly used round, but there was nothing exceptional about it. It falls right between the WWII standard .30-06 (7.62mm) round and the current NATO round of 5.56mm now in use.

      I am extremely familiar with "Shane". "Torrey" and "Wilson" too. Howard Hughes knew what he was doing when he tried to buy that flick.

     Very telling that you would tie a Hollywood Movie into a discussion of the Current Z Film.

Simply pointing out that people think shooting victims get thrown forcefully by a gunshot like they see in the movies.

Both bullets recovered were 6.5mm Carcano bullets. So were the only three recovered shells. There is no evidence of any other bullet fired in Dealey Plaza that day.

[Royell Storing]

On that we can agree.I wouldn't call the 6.5mm Carcano routine. It wasn't a commonly used round, but there was nothing exceptional about it. It falls right between the WWII standard .30-06 (7.62mm) round and the current NATO round of 5.56mm now in use.
Simply pointing out that people think shooting victims get thrown forcefully by a gunshot like they see in the movies.

Both bullets recovered were 6.5mm Carcano bullets. So were the only three recovered shells. There is no evidence of any other bullet fired in Dealey Plaza that day.

   Nice attempted dodge. There is a "Lost Bullet".

[John Corbett]

   Nice attempted dodge. There is a "Lost Bullet".

There was a clear consensus of the witnesses that 3 shots were fired. With 3 recovered shells and 2 recovered bullets, all positively traced to Oswald's rifle. Does it take a genius to figure out what the caliber of that lost bullet was and which rifle fired it?

[Royell Storing]

There was a clear consensus of the witnesses that 3 shots were fired. With 3 recovered shells and 2 recovered bullets, all positively traced to Oswald's rifle. Does it take a genius to figure out what the caliber of that lost bullet was and which rifle fired it?

   And you also forgot the HSCA "4th shot". This is what happens when you present only hand picked portions of a story. That story is quickly dismantled piece-by-piece.