What physics reveals about the JFK event

[Bill Chapman]

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...

You're way too emotional about your pet theory. Are you related to the DalTex trick-shot artist by any chance?

[Andrew Mason]

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

It is difficult to say precisely when the backward motion begins because things happened much more quickly than could be captured in an 18 frame/sec film.  The explosive ejection of matter from the head takes place after forward momentum has been imparted to the head by the bullet impact. So the rearward impulse that the explosive ejection of matter creates first has to stop the forward motion before the direction of motion of the head is reversed.

As far as your question: "Are you offering any explanation of the backward movement?" is concerned, have you been reading the posts in this thread at all? The explosive ejection of matter from the head necessarily creates a rearward impulse to the head.

[Matt Grantham]

The explosive ejection of matter from the head necessarily creates a rearward impulse to the head.

Prove it

 And when I say that it does not mean simply parroting some narrative that either you or others wish to recite. Indeed Alvarez gave a shot at science but it got shot down

[Bill Chapman]

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...

Run, Jimbo... RUN!

[Jerry Organ]

Prove it

 And when I say that it does not mean simply parroting some narrative that either you or others wish to recite. Indeed Alvarez gave a shot at science but it got shot down

Nothing short of firing Carcano bullets into live human heads would satisfy you.

You can easily "disprove" jet effect by firing a jacketed rifle bullet into a container filled with liquid. Make the parameters as close to actual conditions as much as you like.

[Bill Chapman]

Interesting how words like 'parroting' eventually pop up in exchanges with CTers.. along with 'sheep' and 'lemmings'
Well, let me tell you, I'm having an identity crises for sure: I don't know whether to bleat and get sheared (short back & sides, please), follow people off a cliff... or just squawk at everybody.

[Andrew Mason]

Prove it

 And when I say that it does not mean simply parroting some narrative that either you or others wish to recite. Indeed Alvarez gave a shot at science but it got shot down

Alvarez was shot down by whom. exactly?

I am not sure what you mean by "prove it"?  Are we operating in the real world or in the pseudo-scientific world of your imagination?  I have explained to you that conservation of momentum requires the head to recoil from the forward ejection of matter from the head.  What more are you looking for? Proof of Newton's laws of motion?

[Andrew Mason]

Nothing short of firing Carcano bullets into live human heads would satisfy you.

You can easily "disprove" jet effect by firing a jacketed rifle bullet into a container filled with liquid. Make the parameters as close to actual conditions as much as you like.

Actually, it is difficult to duplicate the explosive exit wound that is seen at z313 with jacketed bullets. It is easy to do with hunting ammunition with melons. But in order to duplicate it with jacketed bullets, the bullet has to strike something sufficiently hard upon entry. If you strapped a layer of dense bone over the incoming side of the melon, that should be enough to flatten the jacketed bullet enough to build up pressure inside the melon.