JFK Assassination Forum
JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate => JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate => Topic started by: Gerry Down on April 01, 2020, 12:21:03 AM
-
If, as some people contend, there was a large hole on the right rear portion of JFKs head and a corresponding small entrance hole at the hairline area above the right eye (presumably this would require a shot from some area in the vicinity of the triple overpass in front of the limousine), then shouldn't JFKs head have snapped back and to the right rather than to back and to the left as we see in the Zapruder film?
-
If, as some people contend, there was a large hole on the right rear portion of JFKs head and a corresponding small entrance hole at the hairline area above the right eye (presumably this would require a shot from some area in the vicinity of the triple overpass in front of the limousine), then shouldn't JFKs head have snapped back and to the right rather than to back and to the left as we see in the Zapruder film?
I would think that the initial impact would just force the head backwards. I'm not sure the impact would be forcefull enough to make the body move in one or the other direction, but I'm no expert and could be wrong.
-
If, as some people contend, there was a large hole on the right rear portion of JFKs head and a corresponding small entrance hole at the hairline area above the right eye (presumably this would require a shot from some area in the vicinity of the triple overpass in front of the limousine), then shouldn't JFKs head have snapped back and to the right rather than to back and to the left as we see in the Zapruder film?
"Back and to the right"?
A new one on me. Actually most people notice a grossly large wound on this area above the right eye and pictures show a small hole in the back of the head. But feel free to speculate because I don't know what you're driving at.
-
"Back and to the right"?
A new one on me. Actually most people notice a grossly large wound on this area above the right eye and pictures show a small hole in the back of the head. But feel free to speculate because I don't know what you're driving at.
What i'm saying is that shouldn't JFKs head gone back and to the right if as many contend there was a large wound on the right rear of JFKs head?
-
What i'm saying is that shouldn't JFKs head gone back and to the right if as many contend there was a large wound on the right rear of JFKs head?
Is that what you are saying or is it what you are asking.... there is a difference, you know...
-
Is that what you are saying or is it what you are asking.... there is a difference, you know...
What i'm saying is that there is a contradiction in what many conspiracy theorists contend. They say there was a large wound in the right rear of JFKs head, which they say is evidence of a shot from the front. But the Zapruder film contradicts this because JFKs head goes back and to the left, which is not what one would expect with a large exit wound in the right rear of his head.
-
What i'm saying is that there is a contradiction in what many conspiracy theorists contend. They say there was a large wound in the right rear of JFKs head, which they say is evidence of a shot from the front. But the Zapruder film contradicts this because JFKs head goes back and to the left, which is not what one would expect with a large exit wound in the right rear of his head.
And you are an expert on the subject or just giving your opinion?
-
And you are an expert on the subject or just giving your opinion?
I own a gun.
-
I own a gun.
So, you are just giving your opinion then.... Got it!
-
So, you are just giving your opinion then.... Got it!
I own a gun.
-
I own a gun.
Yeah, so you said.... are you under the misguided opinion that owning a gun makes you an expert?
Shot many people through the head from the grassy knoll, have you?
-
I own a gun.
I just couldn't help it.
-
I just couldn't help it.
Well done. It's an appropriate response to a stupid remark....
-
Lol :D
Well isn't that what conspiracy theorists have been saying, a shot from the grassy knoll is what caused the back and to the left motion on the Zapruder film?
Except the hole in the back of JFKs head was on the right hand side, indicating a shot not from the grassy knoll, but somewhere in front in the vicinity of the triple overpass.
-
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/4a/JFK_posterior_head_wound.jpg/220px-JFK_posterior_head_wound.jpg)
A drawing depicting the posterior head wound of President Kennedy, made from an autopsy photograph. The small nearly circular posterior scalp wound is at the end of the hair part, near the end of the ruler, and immediately to the right of it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_F._Kennedy_autopsy
-
Lol :D
Well isn't that what conspiracy theorists have been saying, a shot from the grassy knoll is what caused the back and to the left motion on the Zapruder film?
Except the hole in the back of JFKs head was on the right hand side, indicating a shot not from the grassy knoll, but somewhere in front in the vicinity of the triple overpass.
I don't know. I don't have a gun.
-
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/4a/JFK_posterior_head_wound.jpg/220px-JFK_posterior_head_wound.jpg)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_F._Kennedy_autopsy
This picture shows the autopsy technician pulling JFKs scalp into position for a photo. If he left go the scalp would fall back and you'd see a large hole there.
-
This picture shows the autopsy technician pulling JFKs scalp into position for a photo. If he left go the scalp would fall back and you'd see a large hole there.
That is not a photograph. Re-read the caption.
If, as some people contend, there was a large hole on the right rear portion of JFKs head and a corresponding small entrance hole at the hairline area above the right eye ...
I have never heard anyone state this before.
-
That is not a photograph. Re-read the caption.
I have never heard anyone state this before.
Clint Hill said there was a large hole at the back of JFKs head.
-
Clint Hill said there was a large hole at the back of JFKs head.
He wasn't the only one....
-
He wasn't the only one....
Exactly. I think about 40 people said this.
-
When considering head movement relative to a shot striking the head, You also need to consider another shot also striking at the same general time. Also, remember that Jackie has ahold of JFK's wrist/hand and is pulling Downward and possibly toward herself in order to see what JFK is clutching at in his throat area. Also, for all we know, JFK is coughing or choking at the same time all of this is happening. That shot or shots is Not striking the Rock Of Gibraltar. There is movement/motion involved also.
-
Also, for all we know JFK is coughing or choking at the same time all of this is happening. That shot or shots is Not striking the Rock Of Gibraltar. There is movement/motion Involved also.
That's a new one on me! JFK is just coughing in the Zapruder film :D
And what was the head shot, a migrane? :D
-
When considering head movement relative to a shot striking the head, You also need to consider another shot also striking at the same general time. Also, remember that Jackie has ahold of JFK's wrist/hand and is pulling Downward and possibly toward herself in order to see what JFK is clutching at in his throat area. Also, for all we know, JFK is coughing or choking at the same time all of this is happening. That shot or shots is Not striking the Rock Of Gibraltar. There is movement/motion involved also.
The car and JFK are moving forward when the bullet(s) strike his head and he's being held erect by the back brace /wrap.
The bullet doesn't need to throw his head back to create the effect just stop his head's momentum while his body and the limo continue forward. IMO
-
That's a new one on me! JFK is just coughing in the Zapruder film :D
And what was the head shot, a migrane? :D
Well, how often do You clutch at your throat when Not choking or coughing? Also, JFK just suffered being struck in the throat with a bullet. Please apply some Logic coupled with the Images you have seen.
-
The car and JFK are moving forward when the bullet(s) strike his head and he's being held erect by the back brace /wrap.
The bullet doesn't need to throw his head back to create the effect just stop his head's momentum while his body and the limo continue forward. IMO
Based on the Massive EXPLOSION we see on the Zapruder Film, there is going to be substantial head movement vs "just STOP his head's momentum". What you are contending occurs in "Road Runner" Cartoons.
-
Based on the Massive EXPLOSION we see on the Zapruder Film, there is going to be substantial head movement vs "just STOP his head's momentum". What you are contending occurs in "Road Runner" Cartoons.
:D Evaluating the Zapruder Film by comparing it to the special effects of a Road Runner Cartoon?
That explains a lot. ;D
So you don't think the bullet(s) hitting JFK's skull from the right front stopped his forward momentum?
-
The car and JFK are moving forward when the bullet(s) strike his head and he's being held erect by the back brace /wrap.
The bullet doesn't need to throw his head back to create the effect just stop his head's momentum while his body and the limo continue forward. IMO
Does that logic hold up though? Wasn't the limo almost stationary at the time of the head shot? Some witnesses thought the limo even stopped completely.
-
:D Evaluating the Zapruder Film by comparing it to the special effects of a Road Runner Cartoon?
That explains a lot. ;D
So you don't think the bullet(s) hitting JFK's skull from the right front stopped his forward momentum?
Personally, I believe the minute Forward head movement was the result of Jackie pulling on his arm and possibly JFK's coughing or gagging. That EXPLOSION would cause Great head movement. I think the stuff regarding the "back brace" is overplayed when considering restricting Forward movement of his body. It would have restricted JFK's side-to-side movement but not nill forward. His backward motion was already restricted by the Limo back seat back rest. You've seen the pics of that so-called "back brace". It's basically an ACE Bandage wrapped tightly around him. It's hardly what I consider a "Brace".
-
Does that logic hold up though? Wasn't the limo almost stationary at the time of the head shot? Some witnesses thought the limo even stopped completely.
The general consensus is that the Limo did slow down. All the films I've seen of the head shot show this.
I'm guessing Royal thinks the Limo stopped.
-
The general consensus is that the Limo did slow down. All the films I've seen of the head shot show this.
I'm guessing Royal thinks the Limo stopped.
So what speed was the limo going at the head shot, perhaps 5 miles an hour? Walking speed is 3.1 miles an hour.
Is that enough speed to account for the head snap due to the momentum of the car going forward and JFKs limp head falling backwards?
-
The general consensus is that the Limo did slow down. All the films I've seen of the head shot show this.
I'm guessing Royal thinks the Limo stopped.
Regarding a possible limo stop, I keep coming back to Everything that is missing on ALL the images. Why is it No Image shows SA Lem Johns leaping out of the LBJ Follow-Up Car and running up Elm St toward the JFK Limo? He claims he did this, as do the other SS Agents. Why is it No Images show Officer Hargis moving across Elm St and UP the Knoll toward that "little wall" he testified about? And of course we have No images of SA Hickey with that AR-15 in the back seat of the Queen Mary there on Elm St. This all possibly ties into your JFK Head EXPLOSION. Everything that is missing here is within 60-70 feet of each other. This coincidence bothers me.
-
Personally, I believe the minute Forward head movement was the result of Jackie pulling on his arm and possibly JFK's coughing or gagging. That EXPLOSION would cause Great head movement. I think the stuff regarding the "back brace" is overplayed when considering restricting Forward movement of his body. It would have restricted JFK's side-to-side movement but not nill forward. His backward motion was already restricted by the Limo back seat back rest. You've seen the pics of that so-called "back brace". It's basically an ACE Bandage wrapped tightly around him. It's hardly what I consider a "Brace".
"I think the stuff regarding the "back brace" is overplayed when considering restricting Forward movement of his body"
Would have held him erect, IMO.
(https://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae75/garcra/BackBrace_zps9bc372fb.jpg)(https://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae75/garcra/JFKBandages-2.jpg)
-
"I think the stuff regarding the "back brace" is overplayed when considering restricting Forward movement of his body"
Would have held him erect, IMO.
(https://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae75/garcra/BackBrace_zps9bc372fb.jpg)(https://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae75/garcra/JFKBandages-2.jpg)
Obviously, that B/W pic Upper Left is Not what we see Below. You notice the placard Below says "BANDAGES & BELT".
-
From the thread: What if James Files shot JFK, like he said?
You don't have to buy into Files being the grassy knoll shooter, but the "back and to the left" part is pertinent to this thread.
Mike Orr actually stated that a shot to the back of the head happened first....And I agree. If the autopsy photos are legit [showing a hole just a bit left of center] and the Zapruder image seems to show it forward/back in an blink.
If the autopsy photo was real then it would show a fist-sized gaping hole in the right occipital region of JFK's head. But we don't see that. Instead it shows what they want you to see, which is 1 shot from behind and no hole in the back of his head. I have no idea how they faked the photos, but it was easy enough to do back then. And before they were faking photos they were performing post-mortem surgery.
(http://www.readclip.com/JFK/postsurgery.jpg)
There may have been a simultaneous shot from behind but I doubt that it struck JFK's head without pushing it forward significantly, unless its forward momentum was counteracted by a shot from the front. However, IMO, there was too much backward motion for that to be the case.
(http://www.readclip.com/JFK/BackLeft.gif)
I count 2 near simultaneous shots at appox. Z-312, the first one from the direction of the overpass that entered the right side of JFK's hairline and blew a hole out of the back of his head. This sent his head violently backward.
(http://www.readclip.com/JFK/TrainOverpassTurkeyShoot.jpg)
Files recalls that his shot from the knoll happened a split second after the frontal shot and he claimed to have used a Fireball hand-rifle which shot frangible bullets. His shot caused the right temple to blowout when the bullet exploded in JFK's head.
(http://www.readclip.com/JFK/JFK_temple_blowout2.jpg)
Consensus was that the driver did hit the brakes...but I would have too if I thought I was driving into an ambush.
No you wouldn't. At least 2 shots had been fired and you knew you were already under attack. Nobody in their right mind would slow the limo to a near stop, turn to look back at JFK and watch him get his head blown off and only then decide to skedaddle outta Dodge. The Turkey Shoot Point was precisely where Greer slowed the limo down to. It was designed to be orthogonal to Files' position at the knoll. There was even a painted marking on the curb across Elm at the exact TSP, which Greer coincidentally nearly stopped at. Greer must have skimmed over the SS manual re what to do when the POTUS is under attack.
I also think Umbrella Man and the "Cuban" next to him were signal guys and would like to what Files said about them [if anything]...Not that I completely believe Files either.
Umbrella man and Co. were definitely signalling that JFK was still alive and the Turkey Shoot was on. And sure Files could be BSing, but he seems to know some interesting details about the shooting. Maybe he's stolen the real shooter's story, who knows? But he is by far the best candidate for the knoll shooter, if you believe there was one.
-
(https://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae75/garcra/BackBrace_zps9bc372fb.jpg)(https://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae75/garcra/JFKBandages-2.jpg)
Who is JFK talking to in that photo. He makes JFK look like a kid so short in comparison to him.
-
You can Clearly see Jackie PULLING DOWN on JFK's Arm/Wrist. This accounts for the JFK Forward Head Dip.
-
So what speed was the limo going at the head shot, perhaps 5 miles an hour? Walking speed is 3.1 miles an hour.
Is that enough speed to account for the head snap due to the momentum of the car going forward and JFKs limp head falling backwards?
Hello Gerry
The limousine was going 8 mph at z312. The limousine steadily advances 8 inches with each frame of the Zapruder film from z305 through z345. That translates to a steady 8 mph, with very little acceleration.
The pretty steady speed of the limousine means that it provides a good inertial frame of reference. The effects of physics on the head and body of JFK are the same as if the limousine was stopped, except it effectively subtracts 8 mph from the speed of the bullet, which has minimal effect. Don’t try to figure out the effect of the limousine moving at a steady speed on JFK’s head because the effects are about nonexistent.
If a bullet caused JFK’s head to stop, relative to the ground, while the limousine continued moving forward, his head would be off the back of the limousine in about a third of a second.
-
If a bullet caused JFK’s head to stop, relative to the ground, while the limousine continued moving forward, his head would be off the back of the limousine in about a third of a second.
But isn't that what we see in the Zapruder film, a violent head snap backwards?
-
If, as some people contend, there was a large hole on the right rear portion of JFKs head and a corresponding small entrance hole at the hairline area above the right eye (presumably this would require a shot from some area in the vicinity of the triple overpass in front of the limousine), then shouldn't JFKs head have snapped back and to the right rather than to back and to the left as we see in the Zapruder film?
Yes Gerry, you have made a good point. Basically, an argument that can be used against a Pro LN scenario cannot be used against a Pro CT scenario. In that case, it is to be dropped like a red hot stove.
A Pro CT argument is that a body will always move away from the gun. This is a false argument. The muscles of the victim may move the body, even in the case of a bullet through the brain, as can be shown by film of goats being shot through the brain. But cannot be shown by film of people being shot through the brain because these experiments are not allowed.
So, a Pro CT argument is that “Back and to the Left” movement of JFK’s head (I think it’s more of a Backward movement, with a falling to the left side) proves there was not shot from Oswald’s position then, but instead a shot from the right front.
But a back of the right part of the head exit wound indicates a shooter to the front and left. But the principle of “a victim is always driven away from the shooter” and the claim “JFK head was driven back and to the left” would preclude such a shooter. The fallacy in your thinking, from a CT point of view, is using arguments that can be used to discard a Pro-LN scenario to discard a Pro-CT scenario. That is a clear misuse of these techniques.
Martin Weidmann pretended to not understand what you were driving at so he danced around your question.
-
But isn't that what we see in the Zapruder film, a violent head snap backwards?
No. That is not what we see. This is a falsehood that has become established ‘FACT’ by repeated claims, repeated lies, that JFK’s head was driven backwards with great violence. Such is the power of the repetitive lie. Yes, there was great violence, in the explosion of the head. But not in its movement.
Physics graduate student William Hoffman did the best study of the movement of JFK’s head back in the 1960’s. This study is found in Josiah Thompson’s “Six Seconds in Dallas” (it was more like 8.8 seconds).
Let’s define JFK’s head position at z312 to be ‘0’. A positive number indicates a more forward position.
Z312 position 0.0
Moves forward 2.3 inches, average speed, 2.4 mph forward
Z313 position + 2.3
Moves backward 0.6 inches, average speed, 0.6 mph backward
Z314 position + 1.7
Moves backward 0.9 inches, average speed, 0.9 mph backward
Z315 position + 0.8
Moves backward 1.2 inches, average speed, 1.2 mph backward
Z316 position - 0.4
Moves backward 1.4 inches, average speed, 1.5 mph backward
Z317 position - 1.8
Moves backward 1.8 inches, average speed, 1.9 mph backward
Z318 position - 3.6
Moves backward 1.3 inches, average speed, 1.4 mph backward
Z319 position - 4.9
Even a casual look at the Zapruder frames 313 through 319 will confirm that JFK’s head only moves backwards about 7.2 inches, with an average speed of 1.2 mph.
By a curious coincidence, with the frame rate of 18.3 frames per second, a movement of “x” inches indicates an average speed of roughly “x” mph.
William Hoffman pointed out that first the head moved backwards, then the torso started moving backwards a little later.
Let me break in hear and explain what a neurological spasm is. It is a spurious signal that travels down the spinal column. It first effects the neck muscles, then the torso muscles, and continues down the body. It activates all the muscles of the body momentarily. Since the back muscles are stronger than the front muscles, it would tend to move the head and torso backwards, first the head, then the torso.
So, what was the most “violent” motion? The fastest motion, and not that violent, is 2.4 mph, when JF’s head moves FOREWARD, as if hit from behind. From experiments with goats being shot through the brain, body movement will start in 40 milliseconds, which will be starting in the very next frame. If 2.4 mph is violent motion than I tend to walk at a violent speed.
Thereafter, the head starts to move backwards, much more gradually, not violently. First at 0.6 mph backward, then 0.9 mph, then 1.2 mph, when the head finally reaches it’s z312 position.
Then 1.5 mph, 1.9 mph and 1.4 mph, when the head and body is slowed by the seat.
This is consistent of a series of bullets striking from the front, one bullet with each frame. Which by coincidence struck immediately after the shot from the back, perfectly mimicking a neurological spasm.
Or it is simply a neurological spasm, where all muscles are momentarily activated by a spurious signal. The signal starts at the top of the spinal column. It first reaches the neck muscles, which is why only the head is first affected. A little later it reaches the torso, which is why the torso did not start to move immediately, only the head. This explains which the acceleration is gradual and not all at once, as would happen with a bullet from behind.
-
This is consistent of a series of bullets striking from the front, one bullet with each frame. Which by coincidence struck immediately after the shot from the back, perfectly mimicking a neurological spasm.
Or it is simply a neurological spasm, where all muscles are momentarily activated by a spurious signal. The signal starts at the top of the spinal column. It first reaches the neck muscles, which is why only the head is first affected. A little later it reaches the torso, which is why the torso did not start to move immediately, only the head. This explains which the acceleration is gradual and not all at once, as would happen with a bullet from behind.
Are you saying that you believe JFK was shot from the front?
-
In propaganda, the ‘Labels’ one use has a powerful effect. The “Magic Bullet Theory”. The “Violent motion” of JFK’s head. Choice and establish the right labels and you have won half the battle.
If you can establish, in people’s minds, the motion was “Violent”, maybe not possible by JFK, maybe not possible for an Olympic athletic, then what else could cause this motion but the powerful effects of a bullet?
But if the motion is actually much slower, much more ordinary, then maybe something more ordinary could account for this motion, like the muscles of JFK’s body.
-
Are you saying that you believe JFK was shot from the front?
No. Shot from the back. As evident by the initial j-e-r-k forward of the head.
Note, I spell ‘j-e-r-k’ as ‘j-e-r-k’ because in the past, posts with this word without the dashes were automatically considered insults and deleted.
The immediate backwards movement is most likely a neurological spam.
-
I'm starting to think JFKs head just went limp after being shot in the back of the head and the forward movement of the limo caused JFKs limp head to fall back, just like his body goes back too shortly thereafter.
-
I'm starting to think JFKs head just went limp after being shot in the back of the head and the forward movement of the limo caused JFKs limp head to fall back, just like his body goes back too shortly thereafter.
Yes, but the limousine was moving at a pretty steady speed of 8 mph, with only a little acceleration, a fraction of the acceleration that we see in JFK’s head, mild as it was. The movement (from Physics) inside a vehicle moving at a constant speed are the same as if the vehicle was stationary, relative to the vehicle.
-
Yes Gerry, you have made a good point. Basically, an argument that can be used against a Pro LN scenario cannot be used against a Pro CT scenario. In that case, it is to be dropped like a red hot stove.
A Pro CT argument is that a body will always move away from the gun. This is a false argument. The muscles of the victim may move the body, even in the case of a bullet through the brain, as can be shown by film of goats being shot through the brain. But cannot be shown by film of people being shot through the brain because these experiments are not allowed.
So, a Pro CT argument is that “Back and to the Left” movement of JFK’s head (I think it’s more of a Backward movement, with a falling to the left side) proves there was not shot from Oswald’s position then, but instead a shot from the right front.
But a back of the right part of the head exit wound indicates a shooter to the front and left. But the principle of “a victim is always driven away from the shooter” and the claim “JFK head was driven back and to the left” would preclude such a shooter. The fallacy in your thinking, from a CT point of view, is using arguments that can be used to discard a Pro-LN scenario to discard a Pro-CT scenario. That is a clear misuse of these techniques.
Martin Weidmann pretended to not understand what you were driving at so he danced around your question.
A Pro CT argument is that a body will always move away from the gun. This is a false argument. The muscles of the victim may move the body, even in the case of a bullet through the brain,
This factual information..... The head of a victim will move in the direction the projectile is traveling.....
-
Yes, but the limousine was moving at a pretty steady speed of 8 mph, with only a little acceleration, a fraction of the acceleration that we see in JFK’s head, mild as it was. The movement (from Physics) inside a vehicle moving at a constant speed are the same as if the vehicle was stationary, relative to the vehicle.
Or is it? The limo was open to the air. This is not like being inside an airplane travelling at 500 miles an hour. JFKs head was open to the air.
-
I'm starting to think JFKs head just went limp after being shot in the back of the head and the forward movement of the limo caused JFKs limp head to fall back, just like his body goes back too shortly thereafter.
The subtle head movement/tilt is caused by Jackie Pulling DOWN on JFK's arm/wrist. Then the EXPLOSION!. What we See as a result of the Head Shot is Unlike any Other Shot fired that day. Different Ammo, Different Weapon, Different Shooter.
-
Yes, but the limousine was moving at a pretty steady speed of 8 mph, with only a little acceleration, a fraction of the acceleration that we see in JFK’s head, mild as it was. The movement (from Physics) inside a vehicle moving at a constant speed are the same as if the vehicle was stationary, relative to the vehicle.
You need to look at the Z Film. JFK Limo Driver/SA Greer is Turned Around and looking BACK toward JFK. NO DRIVER turns and looks into the backseat of a moving car and maintains anything close to the speed they were previously traveling. SA Greer ain't Gumby.
-
You need to look at the Z Film. JFK Limo Driver/SA Greer is Turned Around and looking BACK toward JFK. NO DRIVER turns and looks into the backseat of a moving car and maintains anything close to the speed they were previously traveling. SA Greer ain't Gumby.
You need to look at the Z Film. From my estimates, the limousine runs a steady 8 mph from z305 to z345.
From the study by William Hoffman, a physics graduate student, with much better skills at measuring than I have, and working from higher quality frames of the Zapruder film than I have access to, measured the speed of the limousine during z304 through z325. The limousine slightly accelerated from 7.89 mph to 8.22 mph. A very small acceleration. A much smaller acceleration than we see in JFK’s head, either in the forward or the backward movement. For all practical purposes, a steady 8 mph.
I don’t care if it shows the driver doing a handstand. If the Zapruder film shows the limousine moving a constant 8 inches forward with each Zapruder frame, then the film shows the limousine moving at 8 mph.
And in earlier head turns, yes, the driver did slow down the limousine but not the last one. With the limousine slowed to 8 mph, he could briefly look backwards without crashing, which is what he did.
-
Or is it? The limo was open to the air. This is not like being inside an airplane travelling at 500 miles an hour. JFKs head was open to the air.
Yes. The limousine was traveling at 8 mph. And the limousine was travelling into a head wind of 10 to 15 mph. So relative to the limousine, the wind was blowing at 18 to 23 mph.
On the other hand, the windshield would deflect a lot of this wind.
I don’t know what effect the wind would have on a limp head.
-
Yes. The limousine was traveling at 8 mph. And the limousine was travelling into a head wind of 10 to 15 mph. So relative to the limousine, the wind was blowing at 18 to 23 mph.
On the other hand, the windshield would deflect a lot of this wind.
I don’t know what effect the wind would have on a limp head.
What i'm saying is, isn't the back seat pushing JFKs body forward at 8mph? And this would cause JFKs limp head to fall backwards. Just like if someone pushed you from the back without you expecting it. Your head would snap back?
-
You need to look at the Z Film. From my estimates, the limousine runs a steady 8 mph from z305 to z345.
From the study by William Hoffman, a physics graduate student, with much better skills at measuring than I have, and working from higher quality frames of the Zapruder film than I have access to, measured the speed of the limousine during z304 through z325. The limousine slightly accelerated from 7.89 mph to 8.22 mph. A very small acceleration. A much smaller acceleration than we see in JFK’s head, either in the forward or the backward movement. For all practical purposes, a steady 8 mph.
I don’t care if it shows the driver doing a handstand. If the Zapruder film shows the limousine moving a constant 8 inches forward with each Zapruder frame, then the film shows the limousine moving at 8 mph.
And in earlier head turns, yes, the driver did slow down the limousine but not the last one. With the limousine slowed to 8 mph, he could briefly look backwards without crashing, which is what he did.
Z304 - Z325 = Essentially 1 Second. Plus, the Limo is traveling DOWNHILL. COASTING DOWNHILL all by itself would increase the speed of an Extremely Heavy car like the JFK Limo. Get Real.
-
Or it is simply a neurological spasm, where all muscles are momentarily activated by a spurious signal. The signal starts at the top of the spinal column. It first reaches the neck muscles, which is why only the head is first affected. A little later it reaches the torso, which is why the torso did not start to move immediately, only the head. This explains which the acceleration is gradual and not all at once, as would happen with a bullet from behind.
I read where they had a hell of a time getting Kennedy out of the car; his feet were really jammed under the jump seat in front of him, apparently. Sounds like something related to a spasm of some sort. And someone said he had no shoes on when brought into the ER.
-
What i'm saying is, isn't the back seat pushing JFKs body forward at 8mph? And this would cause JFKs limp head to fall backwards. Just like if someone pushed you from the back without you expecting it. Your head would snap back?
No. If the limousine is moving at a steady speed, it acts as an ‘inertial frame of reference’. Everything that happens inside will happen the exact same way as if the limousine is still.
Inside a moving vehicle, moving at a constant speed, you can toss a ball back and forth normally. The seats won’t seem to be pushing against you. Acceleration will affect you, but not velocity.
If you slow down or speed up, that’s a different story. But at a constant speed there is no effect. Afterall we are moving on a rotating Earth at hundreds of mph. And hurdling around the sun at thousands of miles an hour. But we don’t notice it. The velocity does not vary much from second to second.
The limousine did speed up slightly, but way too small an amount to account for the movement of JFK’s head.
However, my understanding of Physics is limited to only the most basic principles of Classical Newtonian Physics, which I learned in high school. We could use William Hoffman to evaluate if the wind could have been a significant force in pushing JFK’s head backwards.
-
There's relatively little space between the backseat JFK was sitting atop and the Jump Seats in front of him. With the Limo accelerating through turns, it would be easy for a dead man tumbling onto the floorboard to get his feet/legs tangled underneath the Jump Seats.
-
No. If the limousine is moving at a steady speed, it acts as an ‘inertial frame of reference’. Everything that happens inside will happen the exact same way as if the limousine is still.
Inside a moving vehicle, moving at a constant speed, you can toss a ball back and forth normally. The seats won’t seem to be pushing against you. Acceleration will affect you, but not velocity.
If you slow down or speed up, that’s a different story. But at a constant speed there is no effect. Afterall we are moving on a rotating Earth at hundreds of mph. And hurdling around the sun at thousands of miles an hour. But we don’t notice it. The velocity does not vary much from second to second.
The limousine did speed up slightly, but way too small an amount to account for the movement of JFK’s head.
However, my understanding of Physics is limited to only the most basic principles of Classical Newtonian Physics, which I learned in high school. We could use William Hoffman to evaluate if the wind could have been a significant force in pushing JFK’s head backwards.
Thanks, this is very helpful. It seems we can rule out what i was suggesting.
-
Yes. The limousine was traveling at 8 mph.
Mr. SPECTER. How fast was the President's automobile proceeding at that time?
Governor CONNALLY. I would guess between 20 and 22 miles an hour, and it is a guess because I didn't look at the speedometer, but I would say in that range.
-
Quote from Joe Elliott:
Yes. The limousine was traveling at 8 mph.
Quote from Jerry Freeman, quoting Warren Commission testimony:
Mr. SPECTER. How fast was the President's automobile proceeding at that time?
Governor CONNALLY. I would guess between 20 and 22 miles an hour, and it is a guess because I didn't look at the speedometer, but I would say in that range.
A classic example of why one should not trust eyewitness memories, even of those who had not just been seriously wounded, and go with reliable evidence, like film.
20 to 22 miles an hour? If Clint Hill wasn’t a Cheetah, he was an Olympic Sprinter. As it was, he barely caught up to the limousine doing 16 mph, which was pretty good, considering he had to catch up and get up on the back of the limousine, while it was accelerating. If you needed someone to catch a cab, you could do worse than chose Clint Hill in his prime.
-
Z304 - Z325 = Essentially 1 Second. Plus, the Limo is traveling DOWNHILL. COASTING DOWNHILL all by itself would increase the speed of an Extremely Heavy car like the JFK Limo. Get Real.
Oh yes, and you would know better than William Hoffman, a Physics graduate.
In what ways are you more qualified to make an accurate estimation of the velocity of the limousine than William Hoffman?
Why do you think an acceleration from 7.89 mph to 8.23 mph in about 1.2 seconds is unrealistic?
Can you list your qualifications?
-
I read where they had a hell of a time getting Kennedy out of the car; his feet were really jammed under the jump seat in front of him, apparently. Sounds like something related to a spasm of some sort. And someone said he had no shoes on when brought into the ER.
I don’t know human anatomy very well, but I think the muscles on the back on the calf are strongest. So I would think there would be a tendency for the legs to bend backwards, for the back to arch and legs to follow the same curve, with legs bending back.
Perhaps that could cause the feet to jam under a jump seat but I don’t know.
-
Its 8mm Kodachrome II color film moved through the camera at an average speed of 18.3 frames per second, as determined by later tests.
https://www.jfk.org/the-collections/abraham-zapruder-film/abraham-zapruder-film-timeline/
The specs were rated 16 FPS so 18.3 is really pretty close.
-
https://www.jfk.org/the-collections/abraham-zapruder-film/abraham-zapruder-film-timeline/
The specs were rated 16 FPS so 18.3 is really pretty close.
The Zapruder camera did have a setting for 16 frames per second. It had no setting for 18.3 frames per second. But cameras varied from camera to camera, even of the same model. Alvarez studies of people clapping in the Zapruder film indicate that the filming rate had to be close to 16 frames per second, so it was set for 16 frames per second. However, the FBI tested Zapruder camera, not one of the same model but that very same camera, and found that at the 16 frames per second setting it actually filmed at 18.3 frames per second.
So, 18.3 frames per second is the better estimate for the film rate of the Zapruder film, not 16 frames per second.
-
Does that logic hold up though? Wasn't the limo almost stationary at the time of the head shot? Some witnesses thought the limo even stopped completely.
The Limo slowed down. Based on the film I've seen it didn't stop. IMO
-
Yes, but the limousine was moving at a pretty steady speed of 8 mph, with only a little acceleration, a fraction of the acceleration that we see in JFK’s head, mild as it was. The movement (from Physics) inside a vehicle moving at a constant speed are the same as if the vehicle was stationary, relative to the vehicle.
"The movement (from Physics) inside a vehicle moving at a constant speed are the same as if the vehicle was stationary, relative to the vehicle."
Unless an outside force intercedes. JFK's brain changes speed at Z-313 when a bullet(s) goes through his skull.
That same bullet(s), from the front, impeded the forward motion of his head and upper torso.
Everything else in the vehicle kept moving forward for that split second.
The combination of the loss of momentum and force from the bullat creates the head snap. IMO
-
"Head SNAP"? There was No SNAP. There was a Head EXPLOSION.
-
"Head SNAP"? There was No SNAP. There was a Head EXPLOSION.
A head snap preceded the explosion of the head
-
A head snap preceded the explosion of the head
What you guys are referring to as a "SNAP" is actually a very Minor "Tilt" or "Tipping" of JFK's Head. A tree limb "SNAPS". Or, "You can "SNAP" Into a Slim Jim. Oh Yeah"! We see Nothing close to this with regard to the head of JFK.
-
The Zapruder camera did have a setting for 16 frames per second. It had no setting for 18.3 frames per second. But cameras varied from camera to camera, even of the same model. Alvarez studies of people clapping in the Zapruder film indicate that the filming rate had to be close to 16 frames per second, so it was set for 16 frames per second. However, the FBI tested Zapruder camera, not one of the same model but that very same camera, and found that at the 16 frames per second setting it actually filmed at 18.3 frames per second.
So, 18.3 frames per second is the better estimate for the film rate of the Zapruder film, not 16 frames per second.
How would Alvarez know how fast people clapped?
-
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/4a/JFK_posterior_head_wound.jpg)A drawing depicting the posterior head wound of President Kennedy, made from an autopsy photograph. The small nearly circular posterior scalp wound is at the end of the hair part, near the end of the ruler, and immediately to the right of it.
Possibility----The muscle spasm/jet effect could have still happened even if a shot was actually from the front.
We have seen the forward motion of JFKs head at 312-313......
(http://www.jfk-online.com/Closeup_312-313.gif)
Possibility---- simultaneous shots from in front and behind [could have been from a variety of rear locations]
Some witnesses described the last shot as 'pa-pow'.
The presidents brain went mysteriously missing...a suspiciously ludicrous shame.
Where is that autopsy photo from where the above drawing was depicted?
-
Kennedy had a back brace on which would contribute to him staying in a upright position regardless of the firing position imo. Re a head shot from the rear from the TSBD half his face would have been blown off due to the steep angle, instead like the parkland doctors stated , he had a large blow out to the back off the head, case closed right enough.
-
What you guys are referring to as a "SNAP" is actually a very Minor "Tilt" or "Tipping" of JFK's Head. A tree limb "SNAPS". Or, "You can "SNAP" Into a Slim Jim. Oh Yeah"! We see Nothing close to this with regard to the head of JFK.
The exita follows the direction of the missile
At least in this universe
Kennedy's head movement forward approximates the recoil of a 91/41 Carcano (+ tester's head)
Thus Newton's Third Law of Motion can be realized (the equal & opposite reaction thing)
-
The exita follows the direction of the missile
At least in this universe
Very convincing to a rational observer, unless, of course, Greer just happened to slam on the brakes at that very moment, or ... or ... or ...
IF THE ZAPRUDER FILM WAS ALTERED!
-- MWT ;)
-
Very convincing to a rational observer, unless, of course, Greer just happened to slam on the brakes at that very moment, or ... or ... or ...
IF THE ZAPRUDER FILM WAS ALTERED!
-- MWT ;)
Even more convincing to a physicist, I shouldn't wonder.
Take another look at my post and notice I've added a gun nut firing a Carcano and which just happens to confirm the equal and opposite reaction of Kennedy's head movement. Reminds one of Sir Isaac Newton's 3rd Law (hey, another 3!) of Motion, eh wot?
-
Even more convincing to a physicist, I shouldn't wonder.
Take another look at my post and notice I've added a gun nut firing a Carcano and which just happens to confirm the equal and opposite reaction of Kennedy's head movement. Reminds one of Sir Isaac Newton's 3rd Law (hey, another 3!) of Motion, eh wot?
Yes.
Exactly [ . ] inches.
-- MWT ;)
-
Yes.
Exactly [ . ] inches.
-- MWT ;)
Approx 2.5" I heard
Now let's see some Oswald Arse Kisser pull an 'lol' and call Sir Isaac Newton an expert "expert"
-
The Magic Loogie
-
Approx 2.5" I heard
Now let's see some Oswald Arse Kisser LOL and call Sir Isaac Newton an expert "expert"
2.5 inches in 1/18 of a second is how many miles per hour?
-- MWT Walk:
-
2.5 inches in 1/18 of a second is how many miles per hour?
-- MWT Walk:
2.5" as estimated by "experts" experts
WTFV: Redhead mirroring dead head = the 'equal + opposite' thang courtesy Sir Isaac Newton's Third Law of Motion
-
2.5" as estimated by "experts" experts
WTFV: Redhead mirroring dead head = the 'equal + opposite' thang courtesy Sir Isaac Newton's Third Law of Motion
We got that, Bill.
FPS? About three?
-
Notice his face is nowhere near close enough to get nitrates on it.
-
Notice his face is nowhere near close enough to get nitrates on it.
Point being?
-- MWT ;)
-
Notice his face is nowhere near close enough to get nitrates on it.
Show us a shouldering position that would have to be taken in order to qualify as being 'close enough' to be sprayed with nitrates.
EISENBERG: A paraffin test was also run of Oswald's cheek and it produced a negative result.
CUNNINGHAM:Yes.
EISENBERG: Do your tests, or do the tests which you ran, or your experience with revolvers and rifles, cast any light on the significance of a negative result being obtained on the right cheek?
CUNNINGHAM: No, sir; I personally wouldn’t expect to find any residues on a person's right cheek after firing a rifle due to the fact that by the very principles and the manufacture and the action, the cartridge itself is sealed into the chamber by the bolt being closed behind it, and upon firing the case, the cartridge case expands into the chamber filling it up and sealing it off from the gases, so none will come back in your face, and so by its very nature, I would not expect to find residue on the right cheek of a shooter.
-
"Today, Dr. Vincent P. Guinn called the FBI Laboratory and spoke to SA John F. Gallagher. He advised that since the assassination a large part of their efforts have been directed to the determination of powder residues taken from the hands and cheeks of individuals who have shot a rifle similar to the one reportedly owned by Lee Harvey Oswald. He advised that there appears that triple firing of this rifle will leave unambiguous positive tests every time on the paraffin casts. It further appears that washing the casts with diphenylbenzidine does remove one of the characteristic elements (barium) but such washings do not remove all of the other characteristic element in powder residues (antimony). Further be advised that the tests to date indicate that powder residues are deposited on both cheeks of the shooter after the rifle is fired either one time or three times. It appears, he added, that these results can be obtained even if the paraffin casts are made 2 1/2 hours after shooting the rifle providing that the skin of the shooter has not been washed in the meantime. He inquired if any information could be furnished him relating to the actual casts from Oswald. He stated he read about those casts in the newspapers but has no way to confirm the stories. SA Gallagher advised he was not at liberty to discuss this matter. Dr. Guinn asked who in Dallas might be knowledgeable on this subject. He was advised that he could not be given any information relative to these casts at this time." Jevons to Conrad memo, 2/27/1964
-
"Today, Dr. Vincent P. Guinn called the FBI Laboratory and spoke to SA John F. Gallagher. He advised that since the assassination a large part of their efforts have been directed to the determination of powder residues taken from the hands and cheeks of individuals who have shot a rifle similar to the one reportedly owned by Lee Harvey Oswald. He advised that there appears that triple firing of this rifle will leave unambiguous positive tests every time on the paraffin casts. It further appears that washing the casts with diphenylbenzidine does remove one of the characteristic elements (barium) but such washings do not remove all of the other characteristic element in powder residues (antimony). Further be advised that the tests to date indicate that powder residues are deposited on both cheeks of the shooter after the rifle is fired either one time or three times. It appears, he added, that these results can be obtained even if the paraffin casts are made 2 1/2 hours after shooting the rifle providing that the skin of the shooter has not been washed in the meantime. He inquired if any information could be furnished him relating to the actual casts from Oswald. He stated he read about those casts in the newspapers but has no way to confirm the stories. SA Gallagher advised he was not at liberty to discuss this matter. Dr. Guinn asked who in Dallas might be knowledgeable on this subject. He was advised that he could not be given any information relative to these casts at this time." Jevons to Conrad memo, 2/27/1964
Well, doggone it all.
I guess that old guy who had to take a whiz was a Ruskie hit man, then.
And/or Lopez, Saez and Vaganov got 'em from the DalTex Building, I reckon'.
-- MWT ;)
-
Roman, Tom G. is 76 years old. He's just bored and is here for the spombleprofglidnoctobunss and giggles. He has no interest at all in this case, which goes back to the spombleprofglidnoctobunss and giggles. Though I do remember him posting some pretty interesting non-Russian stuff on other forums in years past. Though I myself have never clicked on any ignore button on any forum, your best bet is to save your energy and post to more meaningful stuff than Tom's.
All you have to do, too, is see how many posts he's done on this forum.
-
Roman, Tom G. is 76 years old. He's just bored and is here for the spombleprofglidnoctobunss and giggles. He has no interest at all in this case, which goes back to the spombleprofglidnoctobunss and giggles. Though I do remember him posting some pretty interesting non-Russian stuff on other forums in years past. Though I myself have never clicked on any ignore button on any forum, your best bet is to save your energy and post to more meaningful stuff than Tom's.
All you have to do, too, is see how many posts he's done on this forum.
Dear Mike,
Are you still worshiping anti-American James "Jumbo Duh" DiEugenio and his coterie at the so-called Education Forum?
Do you think that somewhere along the line I got disinterested in it?
Or ... gasp ... maybe The Agency made me an offer I couldn't refuse?
James "Jumbo Duh" DiEugenio -- the highschool history teacher who has never met a Communist he didn't like.
In bed now with Oliver "I Like Putin and My Son Works for RT" Stone.
-- MWT ;)
PS How could I have "no interest" in this case if, as you say, I used to post some pretty interesting "non-Russian" stuff on it?
Have you already made up your mind that the humanitarian organization known as the KGB wouldn't have even thought of training / programming Oswald in the USSR, or of recruiting him a few years earlier in Japan?
PPS The next time you speak with your buddy, Bill Simpich, ask him why he considers Eusebio Azcue's describing, to the HSCA, the Oswald he'd dealt with at the Cuban consulate the way he did (i.e., just like KGB Colonel Nikolai Leonov) was "just a red herring".
Does he think Azcue was working for the CIA?
LOL
PPPS Did you ever get a handle on why the correct identification of Gloria Calvery in Zapruder and Darnell might be important for "serious researchers" (like you!) to know?
Or do I have to explain that to you all over again?