Why does JFK's Head go back after he's shot from the back? [warning: contains gore]

Status
Not open for further replies.

fonestar

Member
If I walked up and shot a melon at point blank range maybe it would go towards me and maybe away from me. If I was below the melon and shot it, perhaps the force would tip it towards me. If I was shooting above the melon and hit the top of it, it would likely fall away from me. If I was square dead-center with a melon and shot it in the center at the same height as my rifle barrel it would fly away from me. If I shot a melon with a .223 it may not move. If I shot a melon with a .50 BMG it would explode.

Again, a melon is hardly a good choice to examine the kinetic forces at play when a human head is shot from an unknown angle and distance.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
But we are trying to establish otu baseline agreement here. You originally said there were no exceptions, so are you changing your position a bit?
 

fonestar

Member
Not at all am I changing my position. Nice try though. If you push a tipsy object it is going to fall in the direction it is weighted towards. If you shoot a solid, grounded object it will fly away from you and the projectile. I think that's pretty self evident what I am saying here.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
If you push a tipsy object it is going to fall in the direction it is weighted towards. If you shoot a solid, grounded object it will fly away from you and the projectile.

So why does the melon here not fly away from the shooter? Why does it move towards the shooter?
[imgsize=100]https://www.metabunk.org/files/JFK's-Head-Movement2.gif[/imgsize]
 
Last edited:

Pete Tar

Senior Member.
....


So now you can point me to your series of bookmarks by objective investigators showing how the divine light of truth only shines through your government and out the mouths of their appointed propagandists on the 6PM news.....

The question is why you think this is what anyone is saying? It's a strawman you can attack with derision that does not represent anyone's position here.
And why do you suggest no-one here believes conspiracies exist? They simply examine what evidence there are for the ones that are suggested. If there is no evidence then it's not their fault.

(A thread on the 9-11 insurance claims would be interesting)
 
Last edited:

Soulfly

Banned
Banned
If you shoot a solid, grounded object it will fly away from you and the projectile. I think that's pretty self evident what I am saying here.
Let us not forget Newton's 3rd Law.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physics_of_firearms
Assuming the gun and shooter are at rest, the force on the bullet is equal to that on the gun-shooter. This is due to Newton's third law of motion (For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction). Consider a system where the gun and shooter have a combined mass M and the bullet has a mass m. When the gun is fired, the two systems move away from one another with new velocities V and v respectively. But the law of conservation of momentum states that the magnitudes of their momenta must be equal:


Since force equals the rate of change in momentum and the initial momenta are zero, the force on the bullet must therefore be the same as the force on the gun/shooter.
Content from External Source
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Let us not forget Newton's 3rd Law.

The problem with Newton's laws is that they are idealized laws for point masses, and are not that useful in describing what happens in a complex elastic system that is in contact with other systems.

The melon here moves towards the gun. So the fact that Kennedy's head moves towards Oswald is not evidence that someone other than Oswald fired that shot.
 

Soulfly

Banned
Banned
The problem with Newton's laws is that they are idealized laws for point masses, and are not that useful in describing what happens in a complex elastic system that is in contact with other systems.

The melon here moves towards the gun. So the fact that Kennedy's head moves towards Oswald is not evidence that someone other than Oswald fired that shot.
Exactly. Just pointing out that if the President moved away from the shooter then the shooter would need to move in the opposite direction with equal force. Anyone who has shot a rifle knows you do not fly back when you shoot it.
 

fonestar

Member
The problem is that you are not even addressing the point of the video I am talking about. If you watch the entire Zapruder film you will see (a few frames after the segment you posted) Kennedy's head is flung backwards so violently it is up over the rear of the seat. That is the part where Jackie begins to scramble towards the back of the car.

It looks like Kennedy may be hit three times from three different directions. The rear at first which also strikes Connally, then from one side and then the final shot from the front only milliseconds later. Again, triangulation as taught and practiced by professional assassins.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
The problem is that you are not even addressing the point of the video I am talking about. If you watch the entire Zapruder film you will see (a few frames after the segment you posted) Kennedy's head is flung backwards so violently it is up over the rear of the seat. That is the part where Jackie begins to scramble towards the back of the car.

He does not really move that much more than the animation I posted.

But your original point was:

Many "conspiracy theories" online seem of deeply flawed logic. Eg, how could someone plant airplane parts all around the Pentagon to hide the fact it was really hit by a missile before reporters arrived? And yet other conspiracy theories seem to be very much factually grounded and very much worthy of objective investigation. Eg, was Kennedy the first victim of gunfire in history to be flung towards the direction of the projectile?

So the basic question here is if moving towards the direction of a projectile is impossible. The melon test show it is not. Other evidence shows that people don't actually move that much as the result of such a small amount of kinetic energy hitting them.

The real evidence of where the bullet came from is the spray of blood.
 

fonestar

Member
Watch the Zapruder film. Anyone can see Kennedy's head is blow backwards almost immediately after your clip ends. You deliberately posted that clip instead of the entire video for a reason. The entire Zapruder film indicates a massive impact wound directed from the front.

Your melon test only proves you are capable of putting up straw men and distractions, not debating facts.
 

Cairenn

Senior Member.
No it doesn't, I have seen that tape for longer than most. Since I live in Dallas and was in grade school when it happened.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Watch the Zapruder film. Anyone can see Kennedy's head is blow backwards almost immediately after your clip ends. You deliberately posted that clip instead of the entire video for a reason. The entire Zapruder film indicates a massive impact wound directed from the front.

Your melon test only proves you are capable of putting up straw men and distractions, not debating facts.

His body moves back for a few frames more. But since a bullet would not have done that, then it's kind of irrelevant.

You've shot living things before. Here's a thought experiment: what if you were to shoot something that was dead?

Meaning - how much of the movement of the thing you shoot is muscle spasms, and how much is the force of the bullet?

Did you watch the mythbusters video, above?
 

Melbury's Brick

Senior Member.
The issue of the blood splatter is an issue of contention and is one of the reasons people believe the Zapruder film may have been doctored.

So in order for your theory to stand up the film must have been altered. The spray of blood/matter is definitely from the front of JFK's head so the shot must have come from behind.

Using the technology of the time it would seem to be impossible to produce a realistic image with editing.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zapruder_film

In 1998, Roland Zavada, a product engineer from Kodak who led the team that invented Kodachrome II, studied the film at the behest of the National Archives and concluded that the film was an “in camera original” and that any alleged alterations were not feasible.[22] Any attempt to create a false "in camera original" by copying Zapruder's film would leave visible artifacts of "image structure constraints of grain; [and] contrast and modulation transfer function losses.…It has no evidence of optical effects or matte work including granularity, edge effects or fringing, [or] contrast buildup
Content from External Source
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Melbury's Brick

Senior Member.
Again, triangulation as taught and practiced by professional assassins.

Where did you find this nugget of information? Did you study at your local "Centre for the Removal by Assassination of Presidents (C.R.A.P)?

Again, a melon is hardly a good choice to examine the kinetic forces at play when a human head is shot from an unknown angle and distance.

As you are presenting your own shooting experiences as evidence.....how many human heads have you shot at the same distances and angles as the JFK assassination?
 
Last edited:

fonestar

Member
This is confirmed method of taking out targets as practiced and documented by OSS since WWII. [...] If you want the maximum chance of taking out a target you don't leave it to a single gunman shooting at a distance. You hit the target from multiple angles ensuring a kill.

[...]

[Admin: post edited for politeness]
 
Last edited by a moderator:

fonestar

Member
"Any documentation to back up this theory?"

This is pretty standard knowledge for those trained in assassination of moving targets. Now, do you need documented evidence that the tires on my car are really round? Because you know, without such evidence it's only a "theory". If you have no knowledge or nothing to contribute why are you on the thread?
 

Soulfly

Banned
Banned
"Any documentation to back up this theory?"

This is pretty standard knowledge for those trained in assassination of moving targets. Now, do you need documented evidence that the tires on my car are really round? Because you know, without such evidence it's only a "theory". If you have no knowledge or nothing to contribute why are you on the thread?
So in other words, no you don't have anything to back up your theory.
 

fonestar

Member
"So in other words, no you don't have anything to back up your theory."

Yes, I do. Both experimental, logical and from what I have read and studied on the case. [...]
 

Soulfly

Banned
Banned
"So in other words, no you don't have anything to back up your theory."

Yes, I do. Both experimental, logical and from what I have read and studied on the case. [...]
You're rude! With that said, please provide this evidence so we can review it.
 

fonestar

Member
Don't bother banning me... I'm out. I have military training, vast shooting experience and am familiar with various weapons systems. I don't need to prove "theories" about my relevant experience to you. Face it, you don't "debunk" anything here. You practice classic disinfo tactics, trying to divert the issue and create distractions. If such things were permitted in civil trials, every one would end in a hung jury or mistrial.

The amount of "conspiracy theories" (as you call them) as circulating online are a direct and proportional representation of the people's faith in their government and institutions. That is to say, nil (as reflected in viewership ratings of the major propaganda channels). Like I said, one day there will be justice both for Mr. Kennedy and Mr. Oswald and history will exonerate him of guilt. That will be done by people who actually possess genuine scientific faculty and intellectual honesty. In otherwords, more than I can say for this forum and it's members. You do the name of science no justice by servile boot-licking and state-worship. This site already seems to have gained a reputation as somewhat of an online joke from what I have read.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Sorry you feel that way. I'd like to drill down to the actual physics here behind the head shot and the body movement, because there seem to be several misunderstandings about what is going on. You have to be polite about it though, and honestly open to focusing on a claim to determine it's accuracy, rahter than just glossing over with your own feelings about the claim.

This isn't a trial. It's a simple question on if the motion of the head has significance, and if it does, then what is the significance.
 

fonestar

Member
Kennedy, Gulf of Tonkin, Watergate, Iran Contra, Clinton murders, fake WMD claims, fake Bin Laden take-out, Seal Team 6, fast and furious, Benghazi, NSA Prism. This is basically a trial and your defendant has absolutely no credibility left. None. You are a group applogizing for known criminals, murderers and bonafide liars.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Kennedy, Gulf of Tonkin, Watergate, Iran Contra, Clinton murders, fake WMD claims, fake Bin Laden take-out, Seal Team 6, fast and furious, Benghazi, NSA Prism. This is basically a trial and your defendant has absolutely no credibility left. None. You are a group applogizing for known criminals, murderers and bonafide liars.

No, we are debunkers, just trying to get the facts straight.

You seem to be acting more like an advocate, trying to argue a position without concern for the actual facts.

Truth is important. Not something you can sweep under the rug when it disagrees with your theory.
 

fonestar

Member
Say what you will. People are not stupid. A vast amount of energy has been devoted trying to reallocate the lies of the status-quo and their failing media-deception-machine from cable TV to the public internet. It's not really going well for them, is it? We're not scared of your "conspiracy theorist" labels. It worked years ago, doesn't work now. The onus is on you to prove anything the government and media channels have asserted has any validity to it. Whether any evidence put forth can be scientifically verified as legitimate.

Truth is important. We won't find truth until these criminal governments have been exposed, put on trial and imprisoned. People in professional vocations would do well to think about how their image, their CV will be interpreted in twenty years time.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
You made a claim about the motion of Kennedy's head and body, so you should be the one to back that up and provide evidence for that claim.

I demonstrated with the watermelon that a bullet fired into a head does not necessarily impart forward motion into the head. The Mythbusters experiments show that a body being shot does not throw that body backwards (they had to used a .50 into a steel plate on his chest to get any significant movement). Other recreations show very little motion of head or body.

So the science here seems to indicate that you can't tell anything about the source of the gunshot from the motion of a head or body. So your claim is bunk.

Does that demonstrate who killed JFK? Of course not. It just debunks that one claim. It does not disprove the multiple gunman theory, it just removes one piece of claimed evidence.
 

fonestar

Member
"A lot of people may believe in bunk but that doesn't change the fact that it is bunk!"

Sound to me like the [people] that believe a gullible dupe fired an inacurate WW2 rifle striking the president and Connally (with magic bullets) at distances near 100M. A weapon that even the govenment claims takes 2.3 seconds to cycle. If you believe in the lone gunman theory, you're [wrong]

[Admin: politeness edits]
 

Soulfly

Banned
Banned
"A lot of people may believe in bunk but that doesn't change the fact that it is bunk!"

Sound to me like the boot-licking dunces that believe a gullible dupe fired an inacurate WW2 rifle striking the president and Connally (with magic bullets) at distances near 100M. A weapon that even the govenment claims takes 2.3 seconds to cycle. If you believe in the lone gunman theory, you're not just anti-scientific. You're downright stupid.
And you will need more than your opinion to sway most peoples thoughts on this forum.
 

fonestar

Member
"And you will need more than your opinion to sway most peoples thoughts on this forum."

Sure! If you can provide me with *any* reason why *anyone* would treat US Govermnet claims on *anything* with any seriousness in the year 2013 I would be happy to reciprocate the favour! You see, faith and credibility are fickle things and you've been running on E for a very, very long time now.
 

Soulfly

Banned
Banned
"And you will need more than your opinion to sway most peoples thoughts on this forum."

Sure! If you can provide me with *any* reason why *anyone* would treat US Govermnet claims on *anything* with any seriousness in the year 2013 I would be happy to reciprocate the favour! You see, faith and credibility are fickle things and you've been running on E for a very, very long time now.
I don't need to trust any government claim, only physics.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top