Would A Bullet Really Knock You Backwards? DEBUNKED

[Steve Barber]

It is a reasonable inference that his body moved as it did because he had been shot. The evidence shows that a bullet entered the back of the head and exited as we see in the film. There is no evidence of any other impact.  So there is no need to prove "jet effect" or "neurological spasm" or a combination of both as the cause of that movement. But if is definitely because he was hit by a bullet from the rear.

 Correct.  He was struck in the back of the head by a singular bullet.  I've been saying it for years, and years.

  The one and only reason for there being any argument about the bullet coming from above and behind is due to the conspiracy theorists whom, since 1964, have argued that the bullet or a second bullet struck him in the head from the front, from the direction of the knoll.  Therefore, this-and this alone--is the reason for discussing the "Jet Effect" and/or the Neuro-muscular reaction.  Those of us who accept the work by the experts in forensics and ballistics, plus using common sense see no need to argue that a singular bullet killed JFK.  With the addition of a document of the 1978 interview Sam Kinney stating that JFK's feet were locked under Connally's jump seat, this only adds further proof that as the fatal bullet struck JFK in the brain, he convulsed, causing his legs to also convulse and move forward, which caused his feet to go completely under Connally's jump seat to the point that they were "locked" under.  This is the first bit of information regarding the body of JFK as the bullets struck, that prove that it was a convulsion that caused his upper body to move backwards against the seat at an estimated 103.3 MPH, not a bullet fired from the front or right side of the limousine.

[Andrew Mason]

Correct.  He was struck in the back of the head by a singular bullet.  I've been saying it for years, and years.

  The one and only reason for there being any argument about the bullet coming from above and behind is due to the conspiracy theorists whom, since 1964, have argued that the bullet or a second bullet struck him in the head from the front, from the direction of the knoll.  Therefore, this-and this alone--is the reason for discussing the "Jet Effect" and/or the Neuro-muscular reaction.  Those of us who accept the work by the experts in forensics and ballistics, plus using common sense see no need to argue that a singular bullet killed JFK.  With the addition of a document of the 1978 interview Sam Kinney stating that JFK's feet were locked under Connally's jump seat, this only adds further proof that as the fatal bullet struck JFK in the brain, he convulsed, causing his legs to also convulse and move forward, which caused his feet to go completely under Connally's jump seat to the point that they were "locked" under.  This is the first bit of information regarding the body of JFK as the bullets struck, that prove that it was a convulsion that caused his upper body to move backwards against the seat at an estimated 103.3 MPH, not a bullet fired from the front or right side of the limousine.

So long as one offers a plausible mechanism to explain the body's motion and so long as there is no evidence at all of a shot from the front right, that is all one needs.  Introducing an uncertain mechanism to explain the body's motion is just giving fuel to the conspiracy fanatics. 

I don't see how the feet being jammed under the front seat helps prove that there was a neuromuscular spasm.  There is nothing to show that JFK did not put his feet there before the shot. There was not a lot of room between the seats.  That would be especially so with Connally in front because he was quite tall and he would likely have pushed the seat back as far as it would go.  Besides, wouldn't a push of the body upward from the feet push the feet down?

The recoil from the exploding head provides a mechanism based on the evidence of what we can actually observe (matter driven out of the head at high speed).  The mechanism of a neuromuscular spasm due to catastrophic loss of brain matter from the right side (which controls the left side of the body) does not have sufficient basis in fact.  It may be possible but we really can't say it occurred.  We can, however, say based on what is observed in the zfilm, that the head received a left-rearward impulse from the matter exploding out of the front right side of his head.

[Steve Barber]

So long as one offers a plausible mechanism to explain the body's motion and so long as there is no evidence at all of a shot from the front right, introducing an uncertain mechanism to explain the body's motion is just giving fuel to the conspiracy fanatics. 

I don't see how the feet being jammed under the front seat helps prove that there was a neuromuscular spasm.  There is nothing to show that JFK did not put his feet there before the shot. There was not a lot of room between the seats.  That would be especially so with Connally in front because he was quite tall and he would likely have pushed the seat back as far as it would go.


The recoil from the exploding head provides a mechanism based on the evidence of what we can actually observe (matter driven out of the head at high speed).  The mechanism of a neuromuscular spasm due to catastrophic loss of brain matter from the right side (which controls the left side of the body) does not have sufficient basis in fact.  It may be possible but we really can't say it occurred.  We can, however, say based on what is observed in the zfilm, that the head received a left-rearward impulse from the matter exploding out of the front left side of his head.

I can!  According to Kinney the feet were "locked".   The only way JFK's feet could've been considered "locked" under that seat was if he'd shoved them up and under the seat, and locked them into that position himself, which I highly doubt that he did.  And the jump seats were not capable of being moved by Connally  any further than where they clicked into place once put into place.  They were connected onto a track, and once locked into place, they could no further to the rear.  You are correct that there wasn't much room between where JFK's feet could be situated and the jump seat.  At least one photograph shows how tight of a squeeze there is between JFK's knees and the back rest of Connally' jump seat.  One photograph during the motorcade shows JFK's knees about an inch away-if that- from the top of Connally's seat.   


  The explosion of head matter exited from TOP of the head--not the "left side"-- but the top. The left side of the skull was basically undamaged same as the brain-and only a fraction of the right top  side of the skull was missing.  Nearly the whole top of his head was gone, according to the top of the head autopsy photos.  Not only can the top of JFK's head be seen flying through the air at a speed of around 80MPH (calculated by Dr. John Lattimer in his book) we can see the skull fragments in the Zapruder film in motion, and a large skull fragment can be seen in both Z 314 between JFK and the Connally's, but the same fragment is captured in later frames bouncing off the top rest of Nellie Connally's seat and tumbling towards the floor of the car. 

[Andrew Mason]

I can!  According to Kinney the feet were "locked".   The only way JFK's feet could've been considered "locked" under that seat was if he'd shoved them up and under the seat, and locked them into that position himself, which I highly doubt that he did.  And the jump seats were not capable of being moved by Connally  any further than where they clicked into place once put into place.  They were connected onto a track, and once locked into place, they could no further to the rear.  You are correct that there wasn't much room between where JFK's feet could be situated and the jump seat.  At least one photograph shows how tight of a squeeze there is between JFK's knees and the back rest of Connally' jump seat.  One photograph during the motorcade shows JFK's knees about an inch away-if that- from the top of Connally's seat.   

Connally was removed first.  The jump seat lifted up so I expect that they would have lifted the seat up to remove JFK.  In any event, we don't really know how JFK's feet were 25 ms after the head shot.  But if you are basing your conclusion of a neuromuscular reaction causing the rear-left motion, it was not because his feet were pinned.  I expect the movement of feet takes significantly longer than 25 ms.

  The explosion of head matter exited from TOP of the head--not the "left side"-- but the top.

I corrected my post shortly afterward to "right side".  You can see the opening up of the right side of his head and you can see a burst of matter over a hemispheric cloud from his head, generally to the right and forward.  That creates an impulse (force x time) in the rear-left direction (ie. opposite to the direction of the matter in the cloud). 

The left side of the skull was basically undamaged same as the brain-and only a fraction of the right top  side of the skull was missing.  Nearly the whole top of his head was gone, according to the top of the head autopsy photos.  Not only can the top of JFK's head be seen flying through the air at a speed of around 80MPH (calculated by Dr. John Lattimer in his book) we can see the skull fragments in the Zapruder film in motion, and a large skull fragment can be seen in both Z 314 between JFK and the Connallys, but the same fragment is captured in later frames bouncing off the top rest of Nellie Connally's seat and tumbling towards the floor of the car.

There is one large fragment that goes up at about a 65 degree angle to the horizontal in the forward direction. It appears to travel about a metre in 25 ms which is 40 m/sec (89 mph), so Lattimer's estimate is about right. The rearward momentum from that is 42% of its total momentum (cos 65°=.42).  If it weighed 100 grams, that piece alone would carry 4 kg m/sec of momentum. So the rear-leftward kick from that would be almost 1/3 of the bullet's incoming momentum.  And that is just one piece of the skull.

[Dan O'meara]

So long as one offers a plausible mechanism to explain the body's motion and so long as there is no evidence at all of a shot from the front right, that is all one needs.  Introducing an uncertain mechanism to explain the body's motion is just giving fuel to the conspiracy fanatics. 

I don't see how the feet being jammed under the front seat helps prove that there was a neuromuscular spasm.  There is nothing to show that JFK did not put his feet there before the shot. There was not a lot of room between the seats.  That would be especially so with Connally in front because he was quite tall and he would likely have pushed the seat back as far as it would go.  Besides, wouldn't a push of the body upward from the feet push the feet down?

The recoil from the exploding head provides a mechanism based on the evidence of what we can actually observe (matter driven out of the head at high speed).  The mechanism of a neuromuscular spasm due to catastrophic loss of brain matter from the right side (which controls the left side of the body) does not have sufficient basis in fact.  It may be possible but we really can't say it occurred.  We can, however, say based on what is observed in the zfilm, that the head received a left-rearward impulse from the matter exploding out of the front right side of his head.

The recoil from the exploding head provides a mechanism based on the evidence of what we can actually observe (matter driven out of the head at high speed).

I don't think you understand what the so-called "jet effect" entails.
Do you believe that the momentum  of any matter traveling away from the head has an equal and opposite impulse on the head?
Do you believe that when the bullet fragments exit the head they have a recoil effect on the head?

[Andrew Mason]

The recoil from the exploding head provides a mechanism based on the evidence of what we can actually observe (matter driven out of the head at high speed).

I don't think you understand what the so-called "jet effect" entails.
Do you believe that the momentum  of any matter traveling away from the head has an equal and opposite impulse on the head?

First of all, it is not about belief. This is demonstrated, repeatable, measurable,  physical science: Newton's laws of motion.

If matter experiences a change in motion, there must be a force acting on it for a period of time (Newton 1). That force multiplied by time integrated over the period of its duration is the impulse or change in momentum it experiences.(Newton 2).

But forces are always paired (Newton 3). So if matter changes its momentum by experiencing forces for a period of time, another body must experience an equal but opposite force for the same period of time and, therefore, an equal and opposite change in momentum.(Newton 3).

So it is not about matter travelling away from the head. It is about matter experiencing a change in motion. The matter ejected from the head experienced a change in its motion due to a force supplied by other matter in the head from which it was ejected.  Therefore, that other matter-the remaining head - experienced an equal and opposite change in momentum.

 

Do you believe that when the bullet fragments exit the head they have a recoil effect on the head?

The laws of physics apply. If the bullet experiences a change of momentum while in contact with matter, that matter experiences an equal and opposite change in momentum. If the matter was the head, the head experiences a momentum change that is equal in magnitude and opposite in direction to the change in momentum of the bullet.

If the bullet experienced an increase in its forward momentum in passing through the head, which seems unlikely, but possible, it would impart some recoil momentum to the head. For example, if the bullet came to a stop in the head and then exploded out of the head due to the built-up pressure in the head and the skull opening up, this would occur.

If the bullet passed through the head and just slowed down, the change in momentum of the bullet is opposite to its direction of travel (ie. toward the shooter). So the head would experience a change in momentum that is equal and opposite to the change in bullet momentum (ie. forward, away from the shooter). In that case, the bullet fragments do not experience any increase in forward momentum on leaving the head so the head does not experience any increase in rearward momentum (recoil). This is, perhaps, the more likely of the two possible scenarios.

[Dan O'meara]

First of all, it is not about belief. This is demonstrated, repeatable, measurable,  physical science: Newton's laws of motion.

If matter experiences a change in motion, there must be a force acting on it for a period of time (Newton 1). That force multiplied by time integrated over the period of its duration is the impulse or change in momentum it experiences.(Newton 2).

But forces are always paired (Newton 3). So if matter changes its momentum by experiencing forces for a period of time, another body must experience an equal but opposite force for the same period of time and, therefore, an equal and opposite change in momentum.(Newton 3).

So it is not about matter travelling away from the head. It is about matter experiencing a change in motion. The matter ejected from the head experienced a change in its motion due to a force supplied by other matter in the head from which it was ejected.  Therefore, that other matter-the remaining head - experienced an equal and opposite change in momentum.

 The laws of physics apply. If the bullet experiences a change of momentum while in contact with matter, that matter experiences an equal and opposite change in momentum. If the matter was the head, the head experiences a momentum change that is equal in magnitude and opposite in direction to the change in momentum of the bullet.

If the bullet experienced an increase in its forward momentum in passing through the head, which seems unlikely, but possible, it would impart some recoil momentum to the head. For example, if the bullet came to a stop in the head and then exploded out of the head due to the built-up pressure in the head and the skull opening up, this would occur.

If the bullet passed through the head and just slowed down, the change in momentum of the bullet is opposite to its direction of travel (ie. toward the shooter). So the head would experience a change in momentum that is equal and opposite to the change in bullet momentum (ie. forward, away from the shooter). In that case, the bullet fragments do not experience any increase in forward momentum on leaving the head so the head does not experience any increase in rearward momentum (recoil). This is, perhaps, the more likely of the two possible scenarios.

The matter ejected from the head experienced a change in its motion due to a force supplied by other matter in the head from which it was ejected.  Therefore, that other matter-the remaining head - experienced an equal and opposite change in momentum.

What was the "force supplied by other matter in the head"?
What force did the remaining head use to eject matter?
Where did this force come from?
Because it's not the bullet.
You are saying the remaining head provided a force that ejected the jet of material.
How was this force provided?