https://www.history.com/news/jfk-assassination-grassy-knoll-theory-debunked
(https://abm-website-assets.s3.amazonaws.com/forensicmag.com/s3fs-public/styles/content_body_image/public/embedded_image/2018/12/author.JPG)
Nalli's got another one here:
Sniper Target Tracking Analysis of John F. Kennedy Assassination
Journal of the Association for Crime Scene Reconstruction, Nov 2018 ( Link (https://www.acsr.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/12/2018-Target-Tracking-Analysis-of-JFK-Assassination-Nalli.pdf) )
https://www.history.com/news/jfk-assassination-grassy-knoll-theory-debunked
Let's say for the sake of argument that we all agree that there was no shooter on the north knoll.
Let's say for the sake of argument that we all agree that there was no shooter on the north knoll.
Does that demonstrate that Oswald killed the president?
Let's say for the sake of argument that we all agree that there was no shooter on the north knoll.
Does that demonstrate that Oswald killed the president?
Yes, that's what the physics experts are saying.
JohnM
As they say in the "World of Science," "on the contrary." The final move of President Kennedy's body is observed to be to the left-rear of the limo, which suggests (according to "Conservation of Momentum") the final shot (or shots) was from the front of the motorcade hurling JFK in that direction (L-rear). This is analogous to a baseball player "at bat" connecting with the ball. Generally, the ball will travel in a direction AWAY from the batter, not TOWARD him. ;D
As they say in the "World of Science," "on the contrary." The final move of President Kennedy's body is observed to be to the left-rear of the limo, which suggests (according to "Conservation of Momentum") the final shot (or shots) was from the front of the motorcade hurling JFK in that direction (L-rear). This is analogous to a baseball player "at bat" connecting with the ball. Generally, the ball will travel in a direction AWAY from the batter, not TOWARD him. ;DThe jet effect IS all about conservation of momentum. There was a spray of matter going forward out of the front right side of JFK's head. The momentum of that matter could easily amount to several times the momentum of the incoming bullet, sending the head and body backward and to the left, overcoming and overwhelming the forward momentum imparted by the incoming bullet. See: Alvarez's paper at 434 (http://www.dufourlaw.com/JFK/Alvarez.pdf):
The jet effect IS all about conservation of momentum. There was a spray of matter going forward out of the front right side of JFK's head. The momentum of that matter could easily amount to several times the momentum of the incoming bullet, sending the head and body backward and to the left, overcoming and overwhelming the forward momentum imparted by the incoming bullet. See: Alvarez's paper at 434 (http://www.dufourlaw.com/JFK/Alvarez.pdf):On a more lay mans terms when a car speeds up the people on board are pushed backwards
- I concluded that the retrograde motion of the President's head, in response to the rifle bullet shot, is consistent with the law of conservation of momentum, if one pays attention to the law of conservation of energy as well, and includes the momentum of all the material in the problem. The simplest way to see where I differ from most of the critics is to note that they treat the problem as though it involved only two interacting masses: the bullet and the head. My analysis involves three interacting masses, the bullet, the jet of brain tissue observable in frame 313, and the remaining part of the head. It will turn out that the jet can carry forward more momentum than was brought in by the bullet, and the head recoils backward, as a rocket recoils when its jet fuel is ejected.
The jet effect IS all about conservation of momentum. There was a spray of matter going forward out of the front right side of JFK's head. The momentum of that matter could easily amount to several times the momentum of the incoming bullet, sending the head and body backward and to the left, overcoming and overwhelming the forward momentum imparted by the incoming bullet. See: Alvarez's paper at 434 (http://www.dufourlaw.com/JFK/Alvarez.pdf):
- I concluded that the retrograde motion of the President's head, in response to the rifle bullet shot, is consistent with the law of conservation of momentum, if one pays attention to the law of conservation of energy as well, and includes the momentum of all the material in the problem. The simplest way to see where I differ from most of the critics is to note that they treat the problem as though it involved only two interacting masses: the bullet and the head. My analysis involves three interacting masses, the bullet, the jet of brain tissue observable in frame 313, and the remaining part of the head. It will turn out that the jet can carry forward more momentum than was brought in by the bullet, and the head recoils backward, as a rocket recoils when its jet fuel is ejected.
The exita fired upward at a steep vertical angle according to the film and subsequent tests
From what I've read and recall, without revisiting that information at this moment, Kennedy's feet where jammed tightly under the jump seat in front of him to the extent that it was very difficult to get him out of the car. This indicates a powerful neurological reaction according to the article.
'For every reaction there is an equal and opposite reaction' goes Newton's third law of momentum. Kennedy's head moves about 2.5" forward at the moment of impact, which roughly equals the recoil of a Carcano I've seen online.
The exita fired upward at a steep vertical angle according to the film and subsequent testsWhile there is a piece that appears to go up at sharp angle, there is a much larger volume of ejected matter/blood right in front of the head. There was matter spewed forward onto the Connallys and even onto the hood. The direction was forward from the head. The right side of his head was open and he was already leaning forward and to the left. Matter ejected in a generally forward direction from the right side of his head would have pushed his head back and to the left.
From what I've read and recall, without revisiting that information at this moment, Kennedy's feet where jammed tightly under the jump seat in front of him to the extent that it was very difficult to get him out of the car. This indicates a powerful neurological reaction according to the article.JFK's position in the car at Parkland would have been the result of everything that happened in the 5 minutes after the fatal shot. Jackie leaned over and was on top of him during that time (she was not visible in a photograph taken when the car passed the Trade Mart). If you look at films of people being executed by a bullet to the head, they seem to just fall forward limply with no visible sign of neuromuscular spasm. I am not saying it was not possible I am just saying that there would definitely have been jet effect pushing JFK's head to the back and to the left. Whether there was anything additional is a matter of speculation.
'For every reaction there is an equal and opposite reaction' goes Newton's third law of momentum. Kennedy's head moves about 2.5" forward at the moment of impact, which roughly equals the recoil of a Carcano I've seen online.
While there is a piece that appears to go up at sharp angle, there is a much larger volume of ejected matter/blood right in front of the head. There was matter spewed forward onto the Connallys and even onto the hood. The direction was forward from the head. The right side of his head was open and he was already leaning forward and to the left. Matter ejected in a generally forward direction from the right side of his head would have pushed his head back and to the left.JFK's position in the car at Parkland would have been the result of everything that happened in the 5 minutes after the fatal shot. Jackie leaned over and was on top of him during that time (she was not visible in a photograph taken when the car passed the Trade Mart). If you look at films of people being executed by a bullet to the head, they seem to just fall forward limply with no visible sign of neuromuscular spasm. I am not saying it was not possible I am just saying that there would definitely have been jet effect pushing JFK's head to the back and to the left. Whether there was anything additional is a matter of speculation.
I suppose it has been calculated just how much jet-effect force would be required to cause Kennedy's movements backwards. Do you know if it has been shown that the explosive force reached a required standard?The calculation is not difficult. It all depends on how much mass is expelled from the head and what portion of the bullet energy it carries.
The calculation is not difficult. It all depends on how much mass is expelled from the head and what portion of the bullet energy it carries.
The momentum is: p = square root of {2m(KE)} where m is the mass of the ejected matter and KE is the kinetic energy of that matter.
Let's say the mass of ejected blood and brain matter was, conservatively, 100 g. It was likely more.
The energy of that expelled mass can only make up a small fraction of the energy of the incoming bullet. This is because much of the bullet energy is used in deforming the bullet when penetrating the skull. The energy of the deformed bullet plowing through the brain is converted into compression energy (pressure x volume of matter) of the brain material that is then converted to kinetic energy of the pressurized brain matter when the front of the skull ruptures.
Conservatively, let's say only 10% of the bullet energy is converted into kinetic energy of the expelled brain matter. A 10 g bullet moving at 1900 fps (580m/sec) carries kinetic energy (mv^2/2) of 1680 Joules. This would mean that the 100 g. of ejected matter carried 168 J. of kinetic energy. Using the formula for momentum, that means that the momentum imparted to the ejected matter was p = sqrt{2 x .1 x 168) or about 6 kg m/sec of momentum. This would propel the head (having a mass of, say, 13 lb or 6 kg) back at a speed of about 1 m/sec.
[Note: Another factor is gravity. Once JFK's body was pushed far enough left, gravity would take effect.]
So even using these conservative estimates for the amount of matter ejected and its energy, there would be a significant momentum imparted to the head - enough to cause a visible rearward and leftward motion of the head.
| (https://sites.google.com/site/jfkforum/hsca/dox/skull-fragmentation.jpg) Note: Detached skull fragments were drawn at a larger scale than the head. |
It is hard to say exactly what happened but I expect that the copper jacket ruptured on impact and much of the lead in the front part of the bullet melted and became a lead spray. The copper jacket and a bit of still solid lead at the base is probably what passed through the skull.
(https://sites.google.com/site/jfkforum/hsca/dox/skull-fragmentation.jpg) Note: Detached skull fragments were drawn at a larger scale than the head.
I'm wondering if the bullet entered at the back of the skull and created a few linear fractures radiating from the impact point, that ran into the lower rear of the skull.
Some of the surface of the skull at the point of impact was pushed forward such that it jutted forward of the intact skull above (see lateral X-ray):
(https://www.jfkassassinationgallery.com/albums/userpics/10001/normal_X_AUT_2.JPG)
The bullet fragmented into multiple pieces at the entry point and may not have had enough energy to fracture the intact skull opposite the entry. Possibly it was the bullet pressure wave that caused the fragmentation of skull above the right ear, or the gaping wound.
Nalli writes:The size of the exit wound and the ruptured skull was definitely caused by the explosive exit wound. However, there had to have been a significant piece of the missile to compress the brain matter that exploded out of the front part of the skull. Whether the skull ruptured because of the pressure alone before the bullet struck the skull from the inside or whether it occurred with the exit of that fragment through the skull is probably not possible to determine.
"It is noted that the massive “defect” was not the “exit wound”
of the bullet (as is commonly misunderstood), but rather
corresponded roughly to the area where the maximum
explosive energy was deposited by the bullet during its passage "
"Here the large wound inflicted on the President's head was not a
bullet exit wound, but rather the region of maximum temporary
cavitation associated with KE transfer. This KE deposit
propagated radially outward in the form of an expanding pressure
wave resulting in a rupture and explosion of the skull."
"However, all this said, note well that because such explosions are
not necessarily the bullet outshoots, the momentum directly carried
forward by a given bullet during passage may not be the primary
player in a recoil effect."
The HSCA drawing seems to imply the right-side gaping wound was caused by the path of a bullet, or more precisely, one of its fragments, that impacted the inside of the skull to fracture it.
The size of the exit wound and the ruptured skull was definitely caused by the explosive exit wound. However, there had to have been a significant piece of the missile to compress the brain matter that exploded out of the front part of the skull. Whether the skull ruptured because of the pressure alone before the bullet struck the skull from the inside or whether it occurred with the exit of that fragment through the skull is probably not possible to determine.
How about this?What do you mean by disintegrate? The bullet will compress and the jacket will rupture and molten lead will spray out.
- Bullet enters skull at rear, disintegrates by time it gets through the bone
If a bullet will just make a bullet sized hole in glass, why would it radiate cracks on the entrance to a skull?
- Bullet hole at rear of skull, with a few fractures radiating downwards
Ah yes the single frame of forward motion somehow takes precedence over the end result of the motion Lots of drawing from the review board folks and we all know how different those descriptions are than Parkland and BethesdaDo you mean physicists who have explained how a bullet that causes an explosive head wound can drive the head back in the direction opposite to that of the incoming bullet, because Newton's third law (for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction) requires it?
Where are all the nutters who believe that force in physics causes and equal and opposite reaction and like to show sheep falling towards the direction of the shot. They would of course say the initial forward motion is indicative of a shot from the front Such consistency from you folks
Perhaps you can distinguish for me when to apply the law of conservation of momentum as opposed to Newtons third law?
| (https://www.jfkassassinationgallery.com/albums/userpics/10001/normal_zapruder_abraham_1845_2005.jpg) | (https://www.jfkassassinationgallery.com/albums/userpics/10001/normal_zapruder_abraham_1846_2005.jpg) |
| (https://www.jfkassassinationgallery.com/albums/userpics/10001/normal_zapruder_abraham_1846_2005.jpg) | (https://www.jfkassassinationgallery.com/albums/userpics/10001/normal_zapruder_abraham_1847_2005.jpg) |
Firstly off it is interesting that no one is offering any clarification on Newton's laws and the absolute opposite interpretations that are being offered. Good old Aristotle and the law of the excluded middle is often a worthy ride at times such as these. Yes the good old jet effect. Never demonstrated other than with liquid or near liquid materials as far as I have seen.
Also the jet is visible in the examples JM has offered The only jet we see from JFK's skull is heading upward so the jet effect should be driving him down into the seat. Just for the sake of ridiculous argument any such 'jet' would have come from JFK's right and therefore would have been driven back to his right
I guess this is better than the twitch theory, but that is not saying much
The only jet we see from JFK's skull is heading upward so the jet effect should be driving him down into the seat.
Ballistic-wise, the brain is a liquid.That is easy Either two shots, or deceleration of the limo. There is also the ever lurking concern of alteration in the Z film though I find extremely unlikely that the forward motion at 312 could have been faked. It is possible that there may have been additional frames of forward motion after 312 and before 313.
Regardless you need to see the consummate amount of material. Not that I agree with giving you some authority to create alchemy through linguistics
Post-Z313, the head is driven downward, backward AND to the left. In other words, the opposite direction of the matter being forcibly expelled from the top right of the skull.
You seem to be ignoring the direction of the projectile Are you suggesting it turned in his skull?
What else would cause a one-frame forward motion and skull eruption, followed by a slightly-less severe backward-downward-leftward motion? Simultaneous bullet strikes from the rear and front?
That is easy Either two shots, or deceleration of the limo.
There is also the ever lurking concern of alteration in the Z film though I find extremely unlikely that the forward motion at 312 could have been faked. It is possible that there may have been additional frames of forward motion after 312 and before 313.
Also I added some edits to my previous message that you might want to check out
You would have need the right front of JFK's skull to have blown out completely to have created a jet effect that would have moved his head back and to the left. That didn't happen. You would have also needed to see a volume of jet material comparable to the examples given by JM. You would need to see a massive amount of material being blown out in the direction previously described Did not happen not even close.
Perhaps you can distinguish for me when to apply the law of conservation of momentum as opposed to Newtons third law?Conservation of momentum follows directly from Newton's third law if you assume that the time of interaction is the same for both interacting bodies (which it is unless the interacting bodies travel at speeds approaching the speed of light relative to each other). An action is a force for a certain duration. The "opposite reaction" is an opposite force for the same duration. Force x time = impulse = change in momentum so if the two impulses are equal and opposite, they impart equal and opposite momentum so there is no change in total momentum: momentum is conserved.
You would have need the right front of JFK's skull to have blown out completely to have created a jet effect that would have moved his head back and to the left. That didn't happen.The right side of JFK's skull opened. His head was also turned to the left and he was leaning to the left.
You would have also needed to see a volume of jet material comparable to the examples given by JM. You would need to see a massive amount of material being blown out in the direction previously described Did not happen not even close.How do you know this if you have not worked it out? See my earlier post using 100 grams of matter being ejected with 10% of the bullet energy. That is enough to send the head recoiling at 1 m/sec.
Jet Effect.Hi John. The coconut shot is very good. It certainly shows the jet effect. Do you know what ammunition was used? It is rather easy to duplicate with hunting bullets (no jacket) but much more difficult with jacketed ammunition. The coconut might be hard enough to deform a jacketed bullet.
(https://i.postimg.cc/Njkqndmc/coconutjeteffect.gif)
(https://i.postimg.cc/PJ5PLLHL/6thfloorsimulationgif.gif)
The right side of JFK's skull opened. His head was also turned to the left and he was leaning to the left.
How do you know this if you have not worked it out? See my earlier post using 100 grams of matter being ejected with 10% of the bullet energy. That is enough to send the head recoiling at 1 m/sec.
Not at all. Just the likelihood of a small diameter cavity producing a very high pressure jet versus he likelihood of a larger one. Again demonstrate either.[/list]You must be working for Lockheed Martin on the next generation of jet engines. Your theory is that the less restricted the nozzle opening of a jet engine, the greater the acceleration.
You are willing to admit there are two forces at play right. any jet effect and the conservation of momentum? In other words any amount of force actually absorbed by the skull that is not blown out works to move the head forward. Is that in your calculationJet effect illustrates conservation of momentum. Jet effect and conservation of momentum are not two different principles. Force is not absorbed by the skull. A force is applied to the skull by the incoming bullet and moves the head forward. That forward momentum of the head, however, is overcome by the much greater rearward recoil momentum from the explosive head wound experienced by the skull (and body to which it is connected). The forward momentum imparted by the incoming bullet to the entire head, including the contents that are spewed from the head. So that momentum adds to the momentum of the ejected contents and reduces the rearward recoil momentum of the intact part of the head and body. But the thing to keep in mind is that the forward momentum of the exploding contents due to the release of a small portion of the bullet energy (pressure x volume = energy) is much greater than the original momentum of the incoming bullet. So the jet effect is more than enough to completely counter the incoming bullet momentum.
Did Alvarez allow for any consideration for the conservation of momentum in his equations for JFK's head shot?Absolutely he did (from his paper which is reproduced at 1 HSCA 434):
Not at all. Just the likelihood of a small diameter cavity producing a very high pressure jet versus he likelihood of a larger one. Again demonstrate either.[/list]Actually, a small nozzle produces a high energy, low pressure flow. This is an illustration of Bernoulli's law, which is based on conservation of energy: higher kinetic energy of the flow results from conversion of pressure energy (potential energy) into kinetic energy. The jet is the result of high pressure behind the nozzle/opening. The narrower opening causes the pressure energy to be transferred to smaller amount of matter so that matter gains more kinetic energy.
Very good. High speed as opposed to high pressure. I assume you added this as a curiosity or just a well meaning correction as opposed to anything relevant to the argument at hand?[/list]Actually, a small nozzle produces a high energy, low pressure flow. This is an illustration of Bernoulli's law, which is based on conservation of energy: higher kinetic energy of the flow results from conversion of pressure energy (potential energy) into kinetic energy. The jet is the result of high pressure behind the nozzle/opening. The narrower opening causes the pressure energy to be transferred to smaller amount of matter so that matter gains more kinetic energy.
Jet effect illustrates conservation of momentum. Jet effect and conservation of momentum are not two different principles. Force is not absorbed by the skull. A force is applied to the skull by the incoming bullet and moves the head forward. That forward momentum of the head, however, is overcome by the much greater rearward recoil momentum from the explosive head wound experienced by the skull (and body to which it is connected). The forward momentum imparted by the incoming bullet to the entire head, including the contents that are spewed from the head. So that momentum adds to the momentum of the ejected contents and reduces the rearward recoil momentum of the intact part of the head and body. But the thing to keep in mind is that the forward momentum of the exploding contents due to the release of a small portion of the bullet energy (pressure x volume = energy) is much greater than the original momentum of the incoming bullet. So the jet effect is more than enough to completely counter the incoming bullet momentum.
Absolutely he did (from his paper which is reproduced at 1 HSCA 434):
"I concluded that the retrograde motion of the President's head, in response to the rifle bullet shot, is consistent with the law of conservation of momentum, if one pays attention to the law of conservation of energy as well, and includes the momentum of all the material in the problem. The simplest way to see where I differ from most of the critics is to note that they treat the problem as though it involved only two interacting masses: the bullet and the head. My analysis involves three interacting masses, the bullet, the jet of brain tissue observable in frame 313, and the remaining part of the head. It will turn out that the jet can carry forward more momentum than was brought in by the bullet, and the head recoils backward, as a rocket recoils when its jet fuel is ejected."
Momentum is conserved regardless of how much damage occurs. If the bullet does not exit the skull and no matter exits the skull then the momentum of the head + bullet will be equal to the momentum of the bullet immediately prior to the bullet contacting the head (assuming the head is able to move independently from the body).
I never said the conservation of momentum and the jet effect are two different principles but rather that they are antagonistic to one another in the given circumstance at hand There are indeed two competing variables. Lets use the illustration of a head shot where no exit wounds or blood splatter of any meaningful amount exits the skull. In such a situation we can conclude the force of the bullet has been absorbed, or if you prefer the language of the physicist, transferred to the skull. The transference of the that force occurs both in terms of internal damage to the skull and the the movement of the skull and body in accord to the law of conservation of momentum
It looks like Tony Szamboti focuses on the major error behind Alvarez's equation hereI am not sure what the point is. The pressure in front of the bullet is built up by the bullet pushing matter forward toward the front of the skull. A jet engine take incoming air from the front, builds up the pressure inside the engine by compressing that air and adding heat and then expelling it out the back. What matters is the pressure and volume of matter inside just before the matter exits.
The temporary
cavity pressure generated in the wake of a projectile’s path through an encased fluid filled
volume is not directly related to the shock wave momentum forward of the projectile in the
way the forward acting pressure of a jet engine is related to the momentum of its exhaust.
Momentum is conserved regardless of how much damage occurs. If the bullet does not exit the skull and no matter exits the skull then the momentum of the head + bullet will be equal to the momentum of the bullet immediately prior to the bullet contacting the head (assuming the head is able to move independently from the body).
I am not sure what the point is. The pressure in front of the bullet is built up by the bullet pushing matter forward toward the front of the skull. A jet engine take incoming air from the front, builds up the pressure inside the engine by compressing that air and adding heat and then expelling it out the back. What matters is the pressure and volume of matter inside just before the matter exits.
Nope a car crash is a perfect example of how kinetic energy/force is transferred into damage to the vehicle and momentum is lostNope. Kinetic energy is transferred into damage to the vehicle but momentum cannot be lost. Momentum is always conserved. Conservation of momentum is among the most fundamental laws of physics. A car crash is an example of an inelastic collision where kinetic energy is lost due to the damage (but not momentum). A collision of two billiard balls is an example of an (almost) elastic collision where kinetic energy is retained as is momentum. Momentum is NEVER lost in any kind of collision. See: http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/elacol.html
Nope. Kinetic energy is transferred into damage to the vehicle but momentum cannot be lost. Momentum is always conserved. Conservation of momentum is among the most fundamental laws of physics. A car crash is an example of an inelastic collision where kinetic energy is lost due to the damage (but not momentum). A collision of two billiard balls is an example of an (almost) elastic collision where kinetic energy is retained as is momentum. Momentum is NEVER lost in any kind of collision. See: http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/elacol.html
Likely there is a linguistic misunderstanding of some sort here but when a car hits a wall damage occurs and momentum is lost. Or momentum is transferred into the structures that are transformed into damage if you preferThe wall is attached to the earth. Although it is not perceptible due to enormous mass of the earth, the earth's momentum increases. The total momentum of the car + wall/earth are the same before and after the collision. Kinetic energy is generally not conserved in collisions but momentum is always conserved. Momentum cannot disappear. It does not matter how or how much energy disappears as heat in the collision. In fact, if it is a collision where one body collides with another and the two bodies end up being stuck together, we can use the conservation of momentum to determine the final speed of the bodies and, thereby, determine exactly how much kinetic energy was lost in the collision.
Matt saidIf you want to discuss physics you have to use terms that have clear physical meaning. While force and kinetic energy are well understood terms (F = ma; KE = mv^2/2), the concept of "absorbing a force" is not at all clear. You will have to explain what that means.
In such a situation we can conclude the force of the bullet has been absorbed,
There is no mention of momentum in this statement. So lets talk in terms of kinetic energy and force unless there is a problem with that?
If you want to discuss physics you have to use terms that have clear physical meaning. While force and kinetic energy are well understood terms (F = ma; KE = mv^2/2), the concept of "absorbing a force" is not at all clear. You will have to explain what that means.
Indeed and if you are to switch terms you too should be clear. I have already explained that absorbing force is simply the transference of kinetic energy into the damage of structures. Did you miss that? Or if you like it another way, the resistance a given substance has to a force, in this case a projectile. The pedantic posturing here seems a bit hollow for anyone who is yet to cite anything concrete in terms of the jet theorySo let's talk about transferring kinetic energy then rather than absorbing force. What is your point?
Just one simple question: How do you explain the president's extremely violent head movement at frame 313? If someone says "jet effect" or "neuromuscular reaction" I will snicker and suggest that Newton's laws took a vacation for a couple of seconds...His head doesn't move at Z313. It moves between frames.
Great, another one who won't answer the question. Someone tell me how Oswald shooting from above and behind can produce the violent motion we see on the films? But you also need to account for the Parkland doctors eyewitness accounts, Clint Hill's testimony, and the incredible inside story of the autopsy. Sorry, but there is no possible way that your boy "Lee Hardly" could perpetrate such a horrific act.
Mr. Chapman tries to pontificate:
"The exita fired upward at a steep vertical angle according to the film and subsequent tests
From what I've read and recall, without revisiting that information at this moment, Kennedy's feet where jammed tightly under the jump seat in front of him to the extent that it was very difficult to get him out of the car. This indicates a powerful neurological reaction according to the article.
'For every reaction there is an equal and opposite reaction' goes Newton's third law of momentum. Kennedy's head moves about 2.5" forward at the moment of impact, which roughly equals the recoil of a Carcano I've seen online.
Mr. Chapman can barely form a sentence at the beginning and he forgets to include the extremely violent "back and to the left" motion seen on all the films. Extremely selective and extremely dishonest. The brilliant comments about the president's feet should be at the top of everyone's priority list!
Just one simple question: How do you explain the president's extremely violent head movement at frame 313? If someone says "jet effect" or "neuromuscular reaction" I will snicker and suggest that Newton's laws took a vacation for a couple of seconds...
Great, another one who won't answer the question. Someone tell me how Oswald shooting from above and behind can produce the violent motion we see on the films? But you also need to account for the Parkland doctors eyewitness accounts, Clint Hill's testimony, and the incredible inside story of the autopsy. Sorry, but there is no possible way that your boy "Lee Hardly" could perpetrate such a horrific act.
Someone tell me how Oswald shooting from above and behind can produce the violent motion we see on the films?
But you also need to account for the Parkland doctors eyewitness accounts, Clint Hill's testimony, and the incredible inside story of the autopsy.
Sorry, but there is no possible way that your boy "Lee Hardly" could perpetrate such a horrific act.
That was an incredibly dishonest clip to post on a public forum. Why did you stop it so we can't see the entire assassination sequence? Is there any other reason other than to mislead? You have lost all credibility and I will not respond further...
That was an incredibly dishonest clip to post on a public forum.
Why did you stop it so we can't see the entire assassination sequence?
Is there any other reason other than to mislead?
You have lost all credibility and I will not respond further...
That was an incredibly dishonest clip to post on a public forum. Why did you stop it so we can't see the entire assassination sequence? Is there any other reason other than to mislead? You have lost all credibility and I will not respond further...
You are trying to mislead or you are not intellectually honest. I'm not your psychiatrist, so I have no idea why you would continue to obfuscate and ignore the salient issue. You keep using the word "exita" and it makes you look even more foolish. Also YOU STILL HAVE NOT ANSWERED THE QUESTION. The evidence of a frontal shot is overwhelming to those who have studied most of the evidence.
You do not make cogent arguments and you are extremely dishonest. There shall be no more responses because it's like arguing with a Trump supporter who only gets their news from right wing sources. There can be no intelligent disagreements because you are trying to mislead. Next...
Stop insulting me and start supporting your conclusions
During WW2 these soldiers were all shot in the head with FMJ weapons and as expected no one reacts like a hollywood movie, no one falls forward and in fact we see the men fall straight down and as the back muscles contract they all fall back towards the shooters.
(https://i.postimg.cc/T340SXzy/Menshotinheadfallback1-zpsd2fc7371.gif)
In the following video we can see that a bullet even a 50cal bullet has nowhere near enough kinetic energy to move a man more than an inch or two.
JohnM
The head motion is ONLY consistent with a shot from above and behind.
How so? You claim the movement of the head is between 312 and 313 and that is indeed true. Of course movement takes place between frames and 313 represent the beginning of backward motion. Are you offering any explanation of the backward movement? Naked assertions such as this are meaningless on their face
You seem under the impression you've disproven "jet effect".
You are trying to mislead or you are not intellectually honest. I'm not your psychiatrist, so I have no idea why you would continue to obfuscate and ignore the salient issue. You keep using the word "exita" and it makes you look even more foolish. Also YOU STILL HAVE NOT ANSWERED THE QUESTION. The evidence of a frontal shot is overwhelming to those who have studied most of the evidence.
You do not make cogent arguments and you are extremely dishonest. There shall be no more responses because it's like arguing with a Trump supporter who only gets their news from right wing sources. There can be no intelligent disagreements because you are trying to mislead. Next...
How so? You claim the movement of the head is between 312 and 313 and that is indeed true. Of course movement takes place between frames and 313 represent the beginning of backward motion. Are you offering any explanation of the backward movement? Naked assertions such as this are meaningless on their faceIt is difficult to say precisely when the backward motion begins because things happened much more quickly than could be captured in an 18 frame/sec film. The explosive ejection of matter from the head takes place after forward momentum has been imparted to the head by the bullet impact. So the rearward impulse that the explosive ejection of matter creates first has to stop the forward motion before the direction of motion of the head is reversed.
The explosive ejection of matter from the head necessarily creates a rearward impulse to the head.
You are trying to mislead or you are not intellectually honest. I'm not your psychiatrist, so I have no idea why you would continue to obfuscate and ignore the salient issue. You keep using the word "exita" and it makes you look even more foolish. Also YOU STILL HAVE NOT ANSWERED THE QUESTION. The evidence of a frontal shot is overwhelming to those who have studied most of the evidence.
You do not make cogent arguments and you are extremely dishonest. There shall be no more responses because it's like arguing with a Trump supporter who only gets their news from right wing sources. There can be no intelligent disagreements because you are trying to mislead. Next...
Prove it
And when I say that it does not mean simply parroting some narrative that either you or others wish to recite. Indeed Alvarez gave a shot at science but it got shot down
Prove itAlvarez was shot down by whom. exactly?
And when I say that it does not mean simply parroting some narrative that either you or others wish to recite. Indeed Alvarez gave a shot at science but it got shot down
Nothing short of firing Carcano bullets into live human heads would satisfy you.Actually, it is difficult to duplicate the explosive exit wound that is seen at z313 with jacketed bullets. It is easy to do with hunting ammunition with melons. But in order to duplicate it with jacketed bullets, the bullet has to strike something sufficiently hard upon entry. If you strapped a layer of dense bone over the incoming side of the melon, that should be enough to flatten the jacketed bullet enough to build up pressure inside the melon.
You can easily "disprove" jet effect by firing a jacketed rifle bullet into a container filled with liquid. Make the parameters as close to actual conditions as much as you like.
You are trying to mislead or you are not intellectually honest. I'm not your psychiatrist, so I have no idea why you would continue to obfuscate and ignore the salient issue. You keep using the word "exita" and it makes you look even more foolish. Also YOU STILL HAVE NOT ANSWERED THE QUESTION. The evidence of a frontal shot is overwhelming to those who have studied most of the evidence.I have debated Bill over the years and while we have disagreed on many things I have never seen anything to suggest that he has ever been dishonest. Your use of ad hominem remarks in a discussion only serves to show the lack of substance to your argument. As Socrates once remarked: 'When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser.'
You do not make cogent arguments and you are extremely dishonest. There shall be no more responses because it's like arguing with a Trump supporter who only gets their news from right wing sources. There can be no intelligent disagreements because you are trying to mislead. Next...
Nothing short of firing Carcano bullets into live human heads would satisfy you.
You can easily "disprove" jet effect by firing a jacketed rifle bullet into a container filled with liquid. Make the parameters as close to actual conditions as much as you like.
Alvarez was shot down by whom. exactly?
I am not sure what you mean by "prove it"? Are we operating in the real world or in the pseudo-scientific world of your imagination? I have explained to you that conservation of momentum requires the head to recoil from the forward ejection of matter from the head. What more are you looking for? Proof of Newton's laws of motion?
Alvarez was shot down by SzambotiAre you saying that the forward momentum of the matter ejected from the head does not impart an equal and opposite momentum to the head? Are you asking us to prove Newton's third law of motion?
As to proving "it" the question was in regard to you proving the jet effects applicability to the head shot to JFK.
I find the experiments at the U.S. Army's Edgewood Arsenal to be superior to shooting watermelons in relevance to shooting skulls. Do you feel differently? I have made no request to go further in terms of exacting testing, but I suppose it is nice polemic to cl;aim otherwise
You might want to check out what their gelatin formulation was.
I find the experiments at the U.S. Army's Edgewood Arsenal to be superior to shooting watermelons in relevance to shooting skulls. Do you feel differently? I have made no request to go further in terms of exacting testing, but I suppose it is nice polemic to cl;aim otherwiseDid any of the goats shot in those experiments undergo explosive head exit wounds or explosive exit wounds of any kind? If not, what is the relevance to the physics of the explosive head wound?
Did any of the goats shot in those experiments undergo explosive head exit wounds or explosive exit wounds of any kind? If not, what is the relevance to the physics of the explosive head wound?
I heard it was called watermelon helper
Was the military in on some conspiracy to use sub standard gels?
I thought you were the one arguing against being too demanding on exacting standards of reproductions of the head shot? I am now confused about your standardsThe melon experiments demonstrate the principal of "jet effect", which is what is seen in Z313ff. If you're after a duplication of the Kennedy head wound dynamics, you'll need an elaborate model with a bone-like casing and ballistic gel that simulates the human brain.
The science of ballistics in 1964 wasn't that advanced such that they had a specific simulant for human brain.
The melon experiments demonstrate the principal of "jet effect", which is what is seen in Z313ff. If you're after a duplication of the Kennedy head wound dynamics, you'll need an elaborate model with a bone-like casing and ballistic gel that simulates the human brain.
Are you saying a melon is a better representation of the dynamics than a skull with a below average brain substitute?
No. One has no hard tissue simulant. The other has a unsuitable brain simulant. One demonstrates the "jet effect". The other demonstrates the fracture pattern of a bullet to the rear of a skull.
Neither are a true duplication of the Kennedy head wound. But I'm pretty sure that no matter how close a future duplication is, CTs will always find fault with it. Andrew's science is definitely making no dent and I don't see where you've refuted it.
If not a shot from behind and above caused the entry wound on the top-back of the President's skull and "jet effect" from the same shot caused the explosive blow-out seen about the right ear and 313ff rearward motion, then please explain what did.
Yes the jet effect exists in melons. That is as far as either of you have ever gotten Congratulations on your delusional breakthrough
Shall we have a battle of questions that no one answers? You might find it instructive to respond to things that were actually said For example, their is no mention of explosive head wounds to which you responded with references about explosive head wounds Just sayinYou are constantly moving the target. The issue is whether the rearward motion of JFK's head after z313 could be caused by a shot from the rear causing an explosive exit wound that sent matter forward from the right front of his head. You said that the Edgewood experiments disproved Alvarez ( ie. disproved his contention that the explosive head wound is consistent with a shot from the rear and that, based on the laws of physics, this forward ejection of matter could explain the rearward motion of the head as recoil from that explosion). I asked you how they that could be the case, suggesting that there were no explosive wounds from the goats shot at Edgewood. You seem to want to avoid the details.
Interesting how words like 'parroting' eventually pop up in exchanges with CTers.. along with 'sheep' and 'lemmings'