Do the Secret Service have a secret audio recording of the fatal head shot?

[Jim Brunsman]

Tommy's explanation of what happened at frame 313 is beyond ridiculous. I've been sporadically studying this case since childhood and have never heard such a false and flawed version of the fatal head shot. If you trot out the "neuromuscular reaction" nonsense, you will have to acknowledge that Newton's laws work every day, including 11/22/63. Maybe the Zapruder film is unclear? What am I missing?

[Nicholas Turner]

Tommy's explanation of what happened at frame 313 is beyond ridiculous. I've been sporadically studying this case since childhood and have never heard such a false and flawed version of the fatal head shot. If you trot out the "neuromuscular reaction" nonsense, you will have to acknowledge that Newton's laws work every day, including 11/22/63. Maybe the Zapruder film is unclear? What am I missing?

Yes Newton's Third Law applies. What would happen according to that law if a large amount of matter was thrown forward from a head wound?

[Steve M. Galbraith]

Yes Newton's Third Law applies. What would happen according to that law if a large amount of matter was thrown forward from a head wound?

As has been asked repeatedly of the "shot came from the front" crowd, what kind of bullet causes a body to jerk back the way JFK's did? The ballistics experts I've read all said there is no such bullet. It makes sense if you apply Newton's law. A bullet doesn't have the power or force to drive a body back like that.

What was JFK hit with, a cannon ball? This wasn't a movie scene where the bodies go flying after being hit. That's not what the experts say a body does when it's hit.

So, if the bullet didn't - and can't - cause such a violent reaction then something else did.

[Bill Chapman]

Yes Newton's Third Law applies. What would happen according to that law if a large amount of matter was thrown forward from a head wound?

The first law seems to have that covered:

First Law
In an inertial frame of reference, an object either remains at rest or continues to move at a constant velocity, unless acted upon by a force.[2][3]

Seems to me the 3rd law creates the initial force required

[Nicholas Turner]

The first law seems to have that covered:

First Law
In an inertial frame of reference, an object either remains at rest or continues to move at a constant velocity, unless acted upon by a force.[2][3]

Seems to me the 3rd law creates the initial force required

Umm, no.

[Bill Chapman]

Umm, no.

Now there's a valuable teaching moment: Just say no.
Thanks so much for your always useful input, Professor

[Thomas Graves]

Now there's a valuable teaching moment: Just say no.

Thanks so much for your always useful input, Professor

I guess he disagrees with you, but is unable to articulate why ...

Shall we declare him the weiner?

--  MWT 

[Nicholas Turner]

I guess he disagrees with you, but is unable to articulate why ...

Shall we declare him the weiner?

--  MWT 

You are funny. But not in the funny ha ha meaning of the word.