What physics reveals about the JFK event

[John Mytton]

That was an incredibly dishonest clip to post on a public forum. Why did you stop it so we can't see the entire assassination sequence? Is there any other reason other than to mislead? You have lost all credibility and I will not respond further...

That was an incredibly dishonest clip to post on a public forum.

Are you denying that Kennedy's head, blood, brain and bone initially moves forward?

Why did you stop it so we can't see the entire assassination sequence?

Unless you're making the ridiculous suggestion that Kennedy was shot simultaneously from the front, then whatever happens after the first movement is irrelevant.

Is there any other reason other than to mislead?

See above.

You have lost all credibility and I will not respond further...

I base my opinions on science and you are most welcome to your reliance on guesses and voodoo.

JohnM

[Bill Chapman]

That was an incredibly dishonest clip to post on a public forum. Why did you stop it so we can't see the entire assassination sequence? Is there any other reason other than to mislead? You have lost all credibility and I will not respond further...

 

The point under discussion concerns the physics involved with Kennedy's movements caused after the kill shot, Sherlock.

[Jim Brunsman]

You are trying to mislead or you are not intellectually honest. I'm not your psychiatrist, so I have no idea why you would continue to obfuscate and ignore the salient issue. You keep using the word "exita" and it makes you look even more foolish. Also YOU STILL HAVE NOT ANSWERED THE QUESTION. The evidence of a frontal shot is overwhelming to those who have studied most of the evidence.

You do not make cogent arguments and you are extremely dishonest. There shall be no more responses because it's like arguing with a Trump supporter who only gets their news from right wing sources. There can be no intelligent disagreements because you are trying to mislead. Next...

[John Mytton]

You are trying to mislead or you are not intellectually honest. I'm not your psychiatrist, so I have no idea why you would continue to obfuscate and ignore the salient issue. You keep using the word "exita" and it makes you look even more foolish. Also YOU STILL HAVE NOT ANSWERED THE QUESTION. The evidence of a frontal shot is overwhelming to those who have studied most of the evidence.

You do not make cogent arguments and you are extremely dishonest. There shall be no more responses because it's like arguing with a Trump supporter who only gets their news from right wing sources. There can be no intelligent disagreements because you are trying to mislead. Next...

Stop insulting me and start supporting your conclusions

During WW2 these soldiers were all shot in the head with FMJ weapons and as expected no one reacts like a hollywood movie, no one falls forward and in fact we see the men fall straight down and as the back muscles contract they all fall back towards the shooters.



In the following video we can see that a bullet even a 50cal bullet has nowhere near enough kinetic energy to move a man more than an inch or two.

JohnM

[Gary Craig]

Stop insulting me and start supporting your conclusions

During WW2 these soldiers were all shot in the head with FMJ weapons and as expected no one reacts like a hollywood movie, no one falls forward and in fact we see the men fall straight down and as the back muscles contract they all fall back towards the shooters.



In the following video we can see that a bullet even a 50cal bullet has nowhere near enough kinetic energy to move a man more than an inch or two.

JohnM

JFK was sitting in a auto that was moving forward at approximately 11mhp. He was held upright by a back brace. The bullet from the from right front didn't throw him backward. It momentarily stopped his forward momentum, while the auto continued at 11mph.

[Matt Grantham]

The head motion is ONLY consistent with a shot from above and behind.

 How so? You claim the movement of the head is between 312 and 313 and that is indeed true. Of course movement takes place between frames and 313 represent the beginning of backward motion. Are you offering any explanation of the backward movement? Naked assertions such as this are meaningless on their face

[Jerry Organ]

How so? You claim the movement of the head is between 312 and 313 and that is indeed true. Of course movement takes place between frames and 313 represent the beginning of backward motion. Are you offering any explanation of the backward movement? Naked assertions such as this are meaningless on their face

You seem under the impression you've disproven "jet effect".

[Matt Grantham]

You seem under the impression you've disproven "jet effect".

 What makes you say that?


 Are you saying there is backwards movement of JFK's head that requires something like the jet effect?