The Magic Bullet

[Tim Nickerson]

 That makes more sense now. I just watched a documentary on the history channel and there were a few witnesses who said they saw Oswald on the 6th floor but no one saw anyone on the Grassy Knoll with a gun... But the headshot looks like it came from the front and not the back.

Yeah,  the headshot does look like it came from the front. No doubt that's how the vast majority of people felt upon first viewing the Zapruder film. However, those familiar with ballistics, or with any real knowledge of physics, knew better. The momentum of a bullet striking the head would not have resulted in the degree of backward movement that we see in the Zapruder film. The momentum of the bullet striking kennedy's head did result in some movement but only a couple of inches. That was a forward movement. John Mytton has a Gif that shows it quite nicely.

A couple of Mythbusters episodes looked into whether a bullet striking a body could violently propel it backwards. They found that they couldn't even do it with a 50 caliber bullet.

James Tague believed that he was hit by either the second or third shot but he wasn't sure of which one.

Mr. TAGUE. I would guess it was either the second or third. I wouldn't say definitely on which one.


It had to have been the third shot. A fragment strike from the second shot is just not plausible at all.

The violent backward movement of Kennedy resulting from the head shot was a neuromuscular reaction.

[Jack Trojan]

Yeah,  the headshot does look like it came from the front. No doubt that's how the vast majority of people felt upon first viewing the Zapruder film. However, those familiar with ballistics, or with any real knowledge of physics, knew better. The momentum of a bullet striking the head would not have resulted in the degree of backward movement that we see in the Zapruder film. The momentum of the bullet striking kennedy's head did result in some movement but only a couple of inches. That was a forward movement. John Mytton has a Gif that shows it quite nicely.

A couple of Mythbusters episodes looked into whether a bullet striking a body could violently propel it backwards. They found that they couldn't even do it with a 50 caliber bullet.

James Tague believed that he was hit by either the second or third shot but he wasn't sure of which one.

Mr. TAGUE. I would guess it was either the second or third. I wouldn't say definitely on which one.


It had to have been the third shot. A fragment strike from the second shot is just not plausible at all.

The violent backward movement of Kennedy resulting from the head shot was a neuromuscular reaction.

JFK might have been hit simultaneously from the front and back, but you being a physicist, why wouldn't a "blast-out" from the back not push the head forward? (then violently back and to the left)

[Tim Nickerson]

JFK might have been hit simultaneously from the front and back, but you being a physicist, why wouldn't a "blast-out" from the back not push the head forward? (then violently back and to the left)

A "blast-out" from the back could have pushed the head forward a couple of inches if there had been a "blast-out" from the back. There wasn't.

[Jack Trojan]

A "blast-out" from the back could have pushed the head forward a couple of inches if there had been a "blast-out" from the back. There wasn't.

According to over a dozen Parkland medical professionals who were there, there was a blast-out from the back. Why should I believe you?

[Tim Nickerson]

According to over a dozen Parkland medical professionals who were there, there was a blast-out from the back. Why should I believe you?

Name the over a dozen Parkland medical professionals who maintained that there was a blast-out from the back.

You don't have to believe me . The Zapruder film, the autopsy photos and x-rays, and the autopsy report speak for themselves.

[Bill Chapman]

It's McAdams, and don't.  Not unless you want more of the same rhetoric you get here from LNers.

As opposed to your endless proclamations of what witnesses saw or meant. To wit: Are you certain Brennan wasn't still concerned, even after finding out that Euins was a second witness?

And is it within the realm of possibilty that he would hold back from telling his wife (according to you) so as to not upset her unnecessarily?

Hoffman changed his story over time and even his brothers (and/or father) said he had a habit of telling tall stories.

And do you mean the Jean Hill who saw a small dog in the limo? Great eyesight there, huh. You forgot to mention that this lady in red told a TV station back then that she didn't see a shooter, only heard the shot. Then in 1992, said she saw the shooter firing from behind a tree.

Is that your definition of rhetoric?

Go ask Alice.

 

[Martin Weidmann]

As opposed to your endless proclamations of what witnesses saw or meant. To wit: Are you certain Brennan wasn't still concerned, even after finding out that Euins was a second witness?

And is it within the realm of possibilty that he would hold back from telling his wife (according to you) so as to not upset her unnecessarily?

Hoffman changed his story over time and even his brothers (and/or father) said he had a habit of telling tall stories.

And do you mean the Jean Hill who saw a small dog in the limo? Great eyesight there, huh. You forgot to mention that this lady in red told a TV station back then that she didn't see a shooter, only heard the shot. Then in 1992, said she saw the shooter firing from behind a tree.

Is that your definition of rhetoric?

Go ask Alice.

 

Hoffman changed his story over time

So did Brennan! Kinda destroys the point you foolishly tried to make.