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

Status
Not open for further replies.

Mick West

Administrator
Staff 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.

You don't have to treat any claim with seriousness. Just evidence, logic, and science. Feel free to ignore the official story if it's not based on those three things.
 

fonestar

Member
"I don't need to trust any government claim, only physics."

And your physics is based on what? Evidence that has been in possession of the FBI for several years? The same FBI that lost the bullet and other critical evidence? Likely tampered evidence?
 

Soulfly

Banned
Banned
"I don't need to trust any government claim, only physics."

And your physics is based on what? Evidence that has been in possession of the FBI for several years? The same FBI that lost the bullet and other critical evidence? Likely tampered evidence?
It is based on real world physics and not movie physics. Both Mick and myself have provided proof that shooting something is not going to cause it to fly back like seen in the Zapruder film. Ignore it if you wish.
 

fonestar

Member
"It is based on real world physics and not movie physics. Both Mick and myself have provided proof that shooting something is not going to cause it to fly back like seen in the Zapruder film. Ignore it if you wish."

My broader point seems to elude you. Every thread on this forum treats the official narrative as if it were some objective crucible of science. That is very anti-scientific in and of itself. It's for those reasons I think this forum itself is somewhat suspicious.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
"It is based on real world physics and not movie physics. Both Mick and myself have provided proof that shooting something is not going to cause it to fly back like seen in the Zapruder film. Ignore it if you wish."

My broader point seems to elude you. Every thread on this forum treats the official narrative as if it were some objective crucible of science. That is very anti-scientific in and of itself. It's for those reasons I think this forum itself is somewhat suspicious.

No, we just focus on an individual claim of evidence and see if it's right or not. Here we are discussing the headshot. The government's position on this has never even been discussed. We are just discussing physics, and experiments.
 

Joe Newman

Active Member
"It is based on real world physics and not movie physics. Both Mick and myself have provided proof that shooting something is not going to cause it to fly back like seen in the Zapruder film. Ignore it if you wish."

My broader point seems to elude you. Every thread on this forum treats the official narrative as if it were some objective crucible of science. That is very anti-scientific in and of itself. It's for those reasons I think this forum itself is somewhat suspicious.

Not every thread. Please check out the thread about Crowley, Parsons, NASA, and the Aeon of Horus in the CT section. I agree with your first post here as well as your take re official narratives. I would love to get your take on the forest of that issue as opposed to isolated trees.
 

lee h oswald

Banned
Banned
CIA Document 1035-960 : Concerning Criticism of the Warren Report


Content from external source
3. Action. We do not recommend that discussion of the assassination question be initiated where it is not already taking place. Where discussion is active [business] addresses are requested:
a. To discuss the publicity problem with [?] and friendly elite contacts (especially politicians and editors), pointing out that the Warren Commission made as thorough an investigation as humanly possible, that the charges of the critics are without serious foundation, and that further speculative discussion only plays into the hands of the opposition. Point out also that parts of the conspiracy talk appear to be deliberately generated by Communist propagandists. Urge them to use their influence to discourage unfounded and irresponsible speculation.

b. To employ propaganda assets to [negate] and refute the attacks of the critics. Book reviews and feature articles are particularly appropriate for this purpose. The unclassified attachments to this guidance should provide useful background material for passing to assets. Our ploy should point out, as applicable, that the critics are (I) wedded to theories adopted before the evidence was in, (I) politically interested, (III) financially interested, (IV) hasty and inaccurate in their research, or (V) infatuated with their own theories [Plus ca change, eh?]. In the course of discussions of the whole phenomenon of criticism, a useful strategy may be to single out Epstein's theory for attack, using the attached Fletcher [?] article and Spectator piece for background. (Although Mark Lane's book is much less convincing than Epstein's and comes off badly where confronted by knowledgeable critics, it is also much more difficult to answer as a whole, as one becomes lost in a morass of unrelated details.)
Content from External Source
As one becomes lost in a morass of unrelated details....amen.
 

lee h oswald

Banned
Banned
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]

Comparing giraffe and amoeba again? Why not have a soda can in place of a melon - or an armadillo? Or a steel and concrete articulated structure, even? Is the rifle the same as Oswald's? Is the operator as far away as Oswald? At the same elevation as Oswald? My visual trig might be a bit off, but sure doesn't look that way. Is the ordnance the same? Was Kennedy's head disembodied, made of big water melon and resting on a shelf? It doesn't show in the video....
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Comparing giraffe and amoeba again? Why not have a soda can in place of a melon - or an armadillo? Or a steel and concrete articulated structure, even? Is the rifle the same as Oswald's? Is the operator as far away as Oswald? At the same elevation as Oswald? My visual trig might be a bit off, but sure doesn't look that way. Is the ordnance the same? Was Kennedy's head disembodied, made of big water melon and resting on a shelf? It doesn't show in the video....

It's the principle that is being illustrated here. There's an expectation that if you shoot something then it will move away from the shooter. This demonstrates that it is not true.

Much more detailed recreations (using the same gun, shooting position, target position, and a more accurate human analog) verify this:

 
Last edited:

lee h oswald

Banned
Banned
You think this head-shot proposed evidence is an unrelated detail?

Melons to prove the official tale of Kennedy; soda cans to prove the official 7 'collapse' tale - what next? Controlled demolitions of cheaply built social housing to prove no demolition? Not again!
Unrelated detail - unnecessary detail - let's all go wading in the swamp of unrelated detail together, forever. It's alright if that's someone's job, or they don't have a life, but most of us don't have the 'forever' to waste on endless, circular, repetitive naysaying - deeply deeply entrenched positions look like the inhabitants aren't planning on moving out any time ever. And if the conversation doesn't expand into meaningful discussion, taking all real world considerations on board, then it will stagnate.....smells a bit eggy already.

Re: 'Physics [is God]' - yes, all well and good, but it's very very important to remember that physics is 'the study of the physical universe' - but that it neglects to account for human beings as being part of that physical universe - and that's a pretty serious shortcoming when trying to ascertain 'truth' - physics does not = truth and physics is at a loss to explain pretty much anything that actually matters to any living being on a living-life basis.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Re: 'Physics [is God]' - yes, all well and good, but it's very very important to remember that physics is 'the study of the physical universe' - but that it neglects to account for human beings as being part of that physical universe - and that's a pretty serious shortcoming when trying to ascertain 'truth' - physics does not = truth and physics is at a loss to explain pretty much anything that actually matters to any living being on a living-life basis.

Physics does a very good job of describing how things move and break. Which is very useful in looking objectively at what happened.

You can't base your entire world view on "the ptb are evil". Some things are just physics.

And demonstrations, like with the cans, the melons, the Verinage demolitions - they don't prove the official stories, they just illustrate important points of science. I see you mock them, but I don't see you refute them.

What about this headshot, and the jerk backwards? Do you think there's any significance here?
 

lee h oswald

Banned
Banned
It's the principle that is being illustrated here. There's an expectation that if you shoot something then it will move away from the shooter. This demonstrates that it is not true.

Use a tin can and the principle changes - because every time you shoot that can it goes away from the bullet's origin. Even that video shows most matter going 'away', in the direction you'd expect. But give us an estimate, like - how many things that get hit by a bullet fly back towards where the bullet came from? Seeing as the argument being championed appears to be that 'things' hit by bullets charge back at the origin of the force.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Use a tin can and the principle changes - because every time you shoot that can it goes away from the bullet's origin. Even that video shows most matter gouing 'away', in the direction you'd expect. But give us an estimate, like - how many things that get hit by a bullet fly back towards where the bullet came from? Seeing as the argument being championed appears to be that 'things' hit by bullets charge back at the origin of the force.

Different things respond differently. What is being debunked here is the claim that because Kennedy jerked backwards, that means he was being shot from the front.

I don't think the bull imparted very much momentum to him at all. That was just a death spasm.

Check out the videos of head-shots of deer on YouTube. You'll see quite a variety. When the deer is hit with a smaller caliber non-frangible bullet they tend to just drop, with no jerk at all.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Is that a suggestion? If so, for who?

For you. Very often conspiracy theorists fall back on the argument "it MUST have been a conspiracy, because the PTB are evil". I've lost count at how many times a discussion ends with someone saying "why do you trust the government!?" when all I've been doing is discussing physics (and I very much do NOT trust the government).

Evil governments do not change the laws of physics.
 

lee h oswald

Banned
Banned
For you. Very often conspiracy theorists fall back on the argument "it MUST have been a conspiracy, because the PTB are evil". I've lost count at how many times a discussion ends with someone saying "why do you trust the government!?" when all I've been doing is discussing physics (and I very much do NOT trust the government).

Evil governments do not change the laws of physics.

Obviously, they just lie about them, obviously.

Paucity of argument comes through loud and clear when one starts to falsely attribute things to another; next, 'clarification of position' or suchlike will be sought. It's cheap, low and typical of what you read in CIA documents on mis/disinfo detail. 'Conspiracy theorists' as perjorative, there's another - that must be getting a bit old - or shall we go back to the 'conspiracy as its generally understood here' tip? Also, I've seen the 'E' word spring from that keyboard many times - I'm not a big fan of such emotive tosh, so try to avoid it. Try it on someone else.

Obviously never heard of Bush Physics then.

A suggestion: I think the new look site should have an hour counter and log-in-log (snappy, eh?) next to each contributor's avatar, so we can see who's full-time.
 

lee h oswald

Banned
Banned
Different things respond differently. What is being debunked here is the claim that because Kennedy jerked backwards, that means he was being shot from the front.


So most things, when shot, move towards the direction of the bullet? That seems to be the desired picture. If not, then what percentage of things shot go towards the bullet as a result?
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
So most things, when shot, move towards the direction of the bullet? That seems to be the desired picture. If not, then what percentage of things shot go towards the bullet as a result?

No. What was demonstrated was that not everything, when shot, moves away from the bullet. And specific examples were given of head analogs, and a live deer.

The claim that is being debunked is that the jerk of Kennedy's head must indicated he was being shot from the front. It clearly does not indicate that. It does not disprove it, however there's no specific evidence that he was shot from the front - and that was fonestar's claim, now debunked.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Since you are fond of the soda can examples, here's a soda bottle, moving towards the gun when shot.


Note: this does not prove LHO was the lone gunman.
 

Pete Tar

Senior Member.
...
A suggestion: I think the new look site should have an hour counter and log-in-log (snappy, eh?) next to each contributor's avatar, so we can see who's full-time.
So you're going down the 'this is a government shill project' huh? I thought you were smarter than that.

I never log out. I leave my computer on 24 hours, and live alone, so there's no need.
 

Josh Heuer

Active Member
I don't need to trust any government claim, only physics.

I don't mean to bring up old stuff and also don't mean to get off topic but I wasn't reading this thread.

You realize almost any 'official story' is just a government claim? I mean, they possess all the evidence and results from 'professional forensic investigators.'
Almost anything that is argued on this forum, there's very little that has real physical evidence we can use ourselves to prove or disprove anything.
Look at Sandy Hook. Explain to me how you can use physics for any of that situation. Explain how by believing the official story, you're not just believing a government claim. Or how you are using physics in that situation.
 

Soulfly

Banned
Banned
I don't mean to bring up old stuff and also don't mean to get off topic but I wasn't reading this thread.

You realize almost any 'official story' is just a government claim? I mean, they possess all the evidence and results from 'professional forensic investigators.'
Almost anything that is argued on this forum, there's very little that has real physical evidence we can use ourselves to prove or disprove anything.
Look at Sandy Hook. Explain to me how you can use physics for any of that situation. Explain how by believing the official story, you're not just believing a government claim. Or how you are using physics in that situation.
For the claim being discussed, the JFK headshot, all that is needed is physics. Physics is not an 'official story'.
 

Josh Heuer

Active Member
For the claim being discussed, the JFK headshot, all that is needed is physics. Physics is not an 'official story'.
Right, and I understand where it can be applied to help debunk (like wtc7).
But you're still avoiding the question.

Or will you just say 'off topic' and ignore?
 

Landru

Moderator
Staff member
I don't mean to bring up old stuff and also don't mean to get off topic but I wasn't reading this thread.

You realize almost any 'official story' is just a government claim? I mean, they possess all the evidence and results from 'professional forensic investigators.'
Almost anything that is argued on this forum, there's very little that has real physical evidence we can use ourselves to prove or disprove anything.
Look at Sandy Hook. Explain to me how you can use physics for any of that situation. Explain how by believing the official story, you're not just believing a government claim. Or how you are using physics in that situation.

The Sandy Hook angle is off topic. If you would like to discuss the physics implications of Sandy Hook you should start a new thread or continue an existing one.
 

Melbury's Brick

Senior 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.
From your first sacasm coated post, it was really only a matter of time before you launched into the usual conspiracy theorist diatribe. (Perhaps you should stick to trading insults with other "cyber sleuths" on You Tube. Perhaps you can uncover how JFK was shot by his driver, or the man in the drain, or a passing pigeon...........
 

Pete Tar

Senior Member.
"It is based on real world physics and not movie physics. Both Mick and myself have provided proof that shooting something is not going to cause it to fly back like seen in the Zapruder film. Ignore it if you wish."

My broader point seems to elude you. Every thread on this forum treats the official narrative as if it were some objective crucible of science. That is very anti-scientific in and of itself. It's for those reasons I think this forum itself is somewhat suspicious.
A defaulting to 'broader points' rather than addressing the simple issue in view is the problem. Broader points are infinite.
 

JeffreyNotGeoffrey

Active Member
From your first sacasm coated post, it was really only a matter of time before you launched into the usual conspiracy theorist diatribe. (Perhaps you should stick to trading insults with other "cyber sleuths" on You Tube. Perhaps you can uncover how JFK was shot by his driver, or the man in the drain, or a passing pigeon...........


I too saw that list and lold. The Clinton murders is telling. If you believe The Clinton Chronicles are true, you are at Alex Jones' level.
My former hardcore CT friend even listened to Wild Bill Cooper's take that it was the driver using an electric gun with fugu poison tipped rounds.
As to Jackie O, I think she was just trying to get out of the car by climbing off the back. Just me.
And does any one know if the driver accelerated at the moment JFK snapped back?
 

JRBids

Senior Member.
A suggestion: I think the new look site should have an hour counter and log-in-log (snappy, eh?) next to each contributor's avatar, so we can see who's full-time.

I leave my computer on and logged into the sites I post on all the time. Hence, I'm asked what I'm doing on FB at 3AM. While I'm asleep.
 

Melbury's Brick

Senior Member.
[quote="lee h oswald],
A suggestion: I think the new look site should have an hour counter and log-in-log (snappy, eh?) next to each contributor's avatar, so we can see who's full-time.
Uh oh.......that sounds a bit NWO to me!
 
Last edited:

lee h oswald

Banned
Banned
My former hardcore CT friend even listened to Wild Bill Cooper's take that it was the driver using an electric gun with fugu poison tipped rounds.
As to Jackie O, I think she was just trying to get out of the car by climbing off the back. Just me.

My former hardcore CT friend even listened to Wild Bill Cooper's take that it was the driver using an electric gun with fugu poison tipped rounds.

Some people are just too gullible. It's a classic bit of disinformation - put out a load of batshit and then lump all sceptics ('conspiracy theorists') into the batshit brigade by association. It's so old that one.

As to Jackie O, I think she was just trying to get out of the car by climbing off the back

This one's a great example of how false memes created at the time (get in first and repeat) have incredible legs - for those who don't bother to look deeper and just accept what they're told - usually by the corpohack media. The truth of Jackie's climbing on to the back of the car is well documented by the Warren Commission. And reviewing the video will reinforce it - Jackie was not trying to get away and save her own skin - after K's head is blown off she immediately climbs out of the car and leans across the boot (trunk) - her feet stay on the seat (at no point does she try to leave the vehicle), the ss man at the rear of the car tries to grab her (misinterpreting her action) but she tells him to eff off and picks something up from the back of the boot and gets back in the car seat. She testified - and so did several others to the same effect - that she had recovered a piece of K's brain and she was still holding it in her hands when they got to the hospital. Apparently (obviously in shock) she kept repeating: I've got his brains in my hands -

So there ya go.

ps - must have been one of those bits of brain that flies towards the direction of the bullet - or maybe it was something to do with the proximity of the 33rd parallel....or Route 77....or something...
 

neverknwo

Member
I too saw that list and lold. The Clinton murders is telling. If you believe The Clinton Chronicles are true, you are at Alex Jones' level.
My former hardcore CT friend even listened to Wild Bill Cooper's take that it was the driver using an electric gun with fugu poison tipped rounds.
As to Jackie O, I think she was just trying to get out of the car by climbing off the back. Just me.
And does any one know if the driver accelerated at the moment JFK snapped back?
The truth of Jackie's climbing on to the back of the car is well documented by the Warren Commission. And reviewing the video will reinforce it - Jackie was not trying to get away and save her own skin - after K's head is blown off she immediately climbs out of the car and leans across the boot (trunk) - her feet stay on the seat (at no point does she try to leave the vehicle), the ss man at the rear of the car tries to grab her (misinterpreting her action) but she tells him to eff off and picks something up from the back of the boot and gets back in the car seat. She testified - and so did several others to the same effect - that she had recovered a piece of K's brain and she was still holding it in her hands when they got to the hospital. Apparently (obviously in shock) she kept repeating: I've got his brains in my hands -

So there ya go.

ps - must have been one of those bits of brain that flies towards the direction of the bullet - or maybe it was something to do with the proximity of the 33rd parallel....or Route 77....or something...

I've never heard cooper mention any fugu gun before. He mentioned it many times it was a nickel plated .45 William Greer used when he turned around with his left hand and blew jfk's brains out at point blank range. There is only limited scientific evidence recreating the ballistics from Oswald's gun shotting jfk in the back of the head and none from the driver's seat, so there for, it must be added, the lens flare off the top of the head debunks that claim, his wife chasing after his brains explains it all.

William Manchester claims that Greer told Jackie Kennedy at Parkland Hospital: "Oh, Mrs. Kennedy, oh my God, oh my God. I didn't mean to do it, I didn't hear, I should have swerved the car, I couldn't help it. Oh, Mrs. Kennedy, as soon as I saw it I swerved. If only I'd seen it in time!"
Content from External Source
It has been estimated that 59 witnesses and the Zapruder Film indicated that Greer stopped after the first shot was fired. However, when interviewed by the Warren Commission, Greer claimed: "I heard this noise. And I thought that is what it was. And then I heard it again. And I glanced over my shoulder. And I saw Governor Connally like he was starting to fall. Then I realized there was something wrong.
Content from External Source


What if he turned around and saw JFK wasn't dead took the fatal shot and took off?

I tramped on the accelerator, and at the same time Mr. Kellerman said to me, "Get out of here fast." And I cannot remember even the other shots or noises that was. I cannot quite remember any more. I did not see anything happen behind me any more, because I was occupied with getting away."
Content from External Source
 
Last edited:

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
This one's a great example of how false memes created at the time (get in first and repeat) have incredible legs - for those who don't bother to look deeper and just accept what they're told - usually by the corpohack media. The truth of Jackie's climbing on to the back of the car is well documented by the Warren Commission. And reviewing the video will reinforce it - Jackie was not trying to get away and save her own skin - after K's head is blown off she immediately climbs out of the car and leans across the boot (trunk) - her feet stay on the seat (at no point does she try to leave the vehicle), the ss man at the rear of the car tries to grab her (misinterpreting her action) but she tells him to eff off and picks something up from the back of the boot and gets back in the car seat. She testified - and so did several others to the same effect - that she had recovered a piece of K's brain and she was still holding it in her hands when they got to the hospital. Apparently (obviously in shock) she kept repeating: I've got his brains in my hands -

So there ya go.

ps - must have been one of those bits of brain that flies towards the direction of the bullet - or maybe it was something to do with the proximity of the 33rd parallel....or Route 77....or something...

Yes, that's probably what it was:
 
Last edited:

neverknwo

Member
Some people are just too gullible. It's a classic bit of disinformation - put out a load of batshit and then lump all sceptics ('conspiracy theorists') into the batshit brigade by association. It's so old that one.



This one's a great example of how false memes created at the time (get in first and repeat) have incredible legs - for those who don't bother to look deeper and just accept what they're told - usually by the corpohack media. The truth of Jackie's climbing on to the back of the car is well documented by the Warren Commission. And reviewing the video will reinforce it - Jackie was not trying to get away and save her own skin - after K's head is blown off she immediately climbs out of the car and leans across the boot (trunk) - her feet stay on the seat (at no point does she try to leave the vehicle), the ss man at the rear of the car tries to grab her (misinterpreting her action) but she tells him to eff off and picks something up from the back of the boot and gets back in the car seat. She testified - and so did several others to the same effect - that she had recovered a piece of K's brain and she was still holding it in her hands when they got to the hospital. Apparently (obviously in shock) she kept repeating: I've got his brains in my hands -

So there ya go.

ps - must have been one of those bits of brain that flies towards the direction of the bullet - or maybe it was something to do with the proximity of the 33rd parallel....or Route 77....or something...

Yes, that's probably what it was:


I'm not seeing the dummy's head being snapped back like jfk's did.

 
Last edited by a moderator:

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
I'm not seeing the dummy's head being snapped back like jfk's did.


You are not seeing it snapped forward either.

Kennedy's "snapping back" is probably just a muscular spasm. Shooting things does not throw them around like that. Large animal jerk around after you shoot them because of their muscles.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top