JFK's Head Snap and the Implausible Jet-Effect and Neurospasm Theories

[Joe Elliott]

Griffith seems to be able to dig up any number of "experts" to support any and every argument but unfortunately they mostly seem to be wrong.







JohnM

This is a good point. Mr. Griffith has top experts who, always using armchair reasoning, not based on appropriate real-world tests, who assure us:

1.   The Neuromuscular Spasm Hypothesis is impossible.

2.   The Jet Effect is impossible.


Well, to be honest, the Neuromuscular Spasm Hypothesis cannot be tested with humans. That fact that it does happen with goats implies it likely occurs with humans.

But the Jet Effect Theory is a quite different story. There are no moral impediments to shooting taped melons and all sorts of other objects. And so, there is a lot of film evidence that this is a real phenomenon.

But, nevertheless, just as assuredly as the neuromuscular Spasm Hypothesis is false, equally so is the Jet Effect Theory. It is a myth. It is against the laws of Physics that an object can be propelled back in the opposite direction the bullet was travelling. Physics Nobel Prize winner Luis Alvarez simply did not know what he was talking about. Only Mr. Griffith and his armchair experts with their lofty degrees understand the physics of it and it is quite impossible.

Yeah, right.

[John Mytton]

Real life isn't Hollywood, these soldiers are all shot in the head with fmj bullets and no one is violently thrown forward, they just fall down and move back towards the shooters.



JohnM

[Michael T. Griffith]

Milicent Cranor is bitter hag. And a screwball.

Lattimer was the screwball, not Cranor.

I notice you did not address any of the egregious errors that Cranor documented in Lattimer's writings (and there are plenty more where those came from).

Here is Lattimer's SBT model, which shows the back wound above the throat wound, far above where even the autopsy photo shows it:



Now compare Lattimer's model with the autopsy photo of the back:



Are you kidding me? This is the kind of shoddy, bogus work that your "expert" routinely produced. Can you find me an equally erroneous, misleading model/diagram done by Cranor? If Cranor even once put out such bogus material, I would hesitate to use any of her research. But I'm willing to bet that you guys will keep using Lattimer's material even though you can see with your own eyes how bogus his SBT model was.

The forward movement of the head is an established and irrefutable fact.

Really? Is it an established and irrefutable fact that the head moves forward 2.3 inches? You might want to talk to Dr. Snyder about that. As I said, I hope you're right, but I also know that Snyder's research was so compelling that it convinced Thompson that no such movement occurs.

The 6 mm wide dimension was of the wound in the scalp, not the skull. That wound was a laceration. A tear. No dimensions were given for the entry wound in the skull.

Wrong. Have you never read the autopsy report? Humes said the wound he measured in the scalp corresponded to the underlying wound in the skull:

Situated in the posterior scalp approximately 2.5 cm laterally to the right and slightly above the external occipital protuberance is a lacerated wound measuring 15 x 6 mm. In the underlying bone is a corresponding wound through the skull which exhibits beveling of the margins of the bone when viewed from the inner aspects of the skull. (CE 387, p. 4)

The wound in the skull was the same size as the wound in the scalp, and vice versa, hence the term "corresponding wound."

As for John Mytton's videos that supposedly show the possibility of the jet effect, did you not notice that none of the target objects in the videos has the same weight as a human head and that they are not attached to anything resembling a neck and spinal cord? Did you notice that?

Are you aware that when Alvarez did his experiments, he at least tried to make his target objects somewhat realistic and relevant by using melons wrapped in strapping tape? And, gee, guess what happened? Virtually all the melons moved away from him, i.e., they moved in the same direction as the bullet was traveling.

Look, if you guys want to get on public boards and defend such specious theories as the jet-effect theory as an explanation for Kennedy's head movement, you need to deal with the scientific refutations of the theory that scientists have already written and that are readily available. You could start with Dr. Chambers' debunking of the theory in his book Head Shot: The Science Behind the JFK Assassination (chapter 9). Or, you could start with Dr. David Mantik's critique of Nicholas Nalli's attempt to resurrect the jet-effect theory--Dr. Mantik's response is available online:

https://themantikview.com/pdf/Omissions_and_Miscalculations_of_Nicholas_Nalli.pdf

Another online study on the absurdity of the jet-effect theory as an explanation for Kennedy's head movement is mechanical engineer Tony Szamboti's article "A Critical Look at Luis Alvarez’s Jet Effect Explanation for the Head Movement of John Kennedy":

http://jfklancer.com/pdf/Jet_Effect_Rebuttal_II_(4-17-2012).pdf

And let us be clear: No one is saying that the phenomenon of the jet effect does not exist. It does, but only in very specific circumstances. The JFK assassination was not one of those circumstances. There is no way on this planet that a jet effect caused Kennedy's backward head movement, as many physicists have explained.

You guys tend to simply ignore research that refutes your theories, no matter how scholarly the research is and no matter how qualified the authors of the research are. Will anybody on your side ever deal with the evidence and research presented by Mantik, Snyder, Chambers, Hoch, Aguilar, Cunningham, Thomas, Chesser, Riley, etc., etc.?  Summarily dismissing research you don't like is not dealing with it; it is avoiding it.

[Jerry Organ]

Lattimer was the screwball, not Cranor.

I notice you did not address any of the egregious errors that Cranor documented in Lattimer's writings (and there are plenty more where those came from).

Here is Lattimer's SBT model, which shows the back wound above the throat wound, far above where even the autopsy photo shows it:

Lattimer's missile track just needs to be lowered a small amount. And the skeleton model ought to be tilted a bit towards the front. You too lazy to do that?

Now compare Lattimer's model with the autopsy photo of the back:

The autopsy photo shows an entry wound on the base of the back of the neck (how it is described in the autopsy report) at the C7 level and exit wound at the T1 level. The 14cm measurements ("B") are in the autopsy report and the 2 1/8" measurement ("A") is in the Clark Panel Review. The President's shoulders are elevated due to postmortem rigidity

The autopsy photo would be the same as Lattimer's model after a honest and diligent person made a few minor common-sense corrections.

[John Iacoletti]

"common sense corrections".  LOL.

[Michael T. Griffith]

Lattimer's missile track just needs to be lowered a small amount. And the skeleton model ought to be tilted a bit towards the front. You too lazy to do that?

Uh, I'm not in the habit of messing with other people's models. They are what they are. Lattimer knew better, but he lied about it anyway. And your answer is to blame me for not adjusting Lattimer's model! That's rich.

The autopsy photo shows an entry wound on the base of the back of the neck (how it is described in the autopsy report) at the C7 level and exit wound at the T1 level. The 14cm measurements ("B") are in the autopsy report and the 2 1/8" measurement ("A") is in the Clark Panel Review. The President's shoulders are elevated due to postmortem rigidity

The autopsy photo would be the same as Lattimer's model after a honest and diligent person made a few minor common-sense corrections.

Oh my goodness, I almost forgot that some of you guys are still peddling the single-bullet theory!  Did you miss the disclosures in the 1990s from which we learn from numerous sources that the autopsy doctors determined that the back wound had no exit point, that the doctors removed the chest organs and rolled the body over to see where the probe was going, that they could see the end of the probe pushing against the chest lining, and that the bullet track went downward rather sharply?

Any honest and intelligent person would factor in this evidence and would also refer to the hard physical evidence of the holes in JFK's shirt and coat. JFK's shirt might have "bunched" a bit, but not nearly enough to migrate the wound that far, and the tailor-made shirt certainly would not have bunched in perfect millimeter-for-millimeter concert with the coat. Any honest an intelligence person would also look at the autopsy face sheet and the death certificate, both of which put the wound below T1, at around T3--and the face sheet was marked "verified" (the WC removed the "verified" notation when they published the sheet).


 

[Jerry Organ]

Uh, I'm not in the habit of messing with other people's models. They are what they are. Lattimer knew better, but he lied about it anyway. And your answer is to blame me for not adjusting Lattimer's model! That's rich.

Too lazy or just plain stupid to make a minor effort to consolidate what's in front of you.

Oh my goodness, I almost forgot that some of you guys are still peddling the single-bullet theory!  Did you miss the disclosures in the 1990s from which we learn from numerous sources that the autopsy doctors determined that the back wound had no exit point, that the doctors removed the chest organs and rolled the body over to see where the probe was going, that they could see the end of the probe pushing against the chest lining, and that the bullet track went downward rather sharply?

Any honest and intelligent person would factor in this evidence and would also refer to the hard physical evidence of the holes in JFK's shirt and coat. JFK's shirt might have "bunched" a bit, but not nearly enough to migrate the wound that far, and the tailor-made shirt certainly would not have bunched in perfect millimeter-for-millimeter concert with the coat.

You call LNers stuck in the past. And you bring up the decades-old nonsense about Kennedy's tailor-made clothing having some magical quality that prevented bunching.

The hole displacement in the back of the jacket and the back of the shirt are "in perfect millimeter-for-millimeter concert"? How kooky.

Any honest an intelligence person would also look at the autopsy face sheet and the death certificate, both of which put the wound below T1, at around T3--and the face sheet was marked "verified" (the WC removed the "verified" notation when they published the sheet).

The face sheet says the wound has the 14cm measurements. That's plotted on my 3D graphic and it works out to the C7 level. The face sheet was prepared by Boswell would stated in 1966 that the markings were not to be considered accurate, but the measurements were.



"Are Autopsy Face Sheets Supposed to be Drawn to Scale?" ( Link )

[Michael T. Griffith]

Too lazy or just plain stupid to make a minor effort to consolidate what's in front of you.

If you can't conduct yourself in a civil manner, I have no desire for further discussion with you.

You call LNers stuck in the past. And you bring up the decades-old nonsense about Kennedy's tailor-made clothing having some magical quality that prevented bunching.

Well, umm, tailor-made shirts are designed to fit the person well. Another "magical quality" that would have prevented Kennedy's shirt from bunching significantly would have been that the lower part of his back was pinning the shirt against the seat. Plus, photos and film of JFK 2-15 seconds before the first shot show that his coat was only slightly bunched.

The hole displacement in the back of the jacket and the back of the shirt are "in perfect millimeter-for-millimeter concert"? How kooky.

I take it you're unaware that the coat and shirt holes line up exactly? This has been known for decades. Both holes put the wound about 5 inches below the collar line.

The face sheet says the wound has the 14cm measurements. That's plotted on my 3D graphic and it works out to the C7 level. The face sheet was prepared by Boswell would stated in 1966 that the markings were not to be considered accurate, but the measurements were.

"Are Autopsy Face Sheets Supposed to be Drawn to Scale?" ( Link )

If the autopsy sheet is marked "verified," one logically assumes that it has been, well, "verified." And isn't it just a whopping coincidence that the death certificate, which was also marked "verified," puts the back wound at T3? So Boswell and Burkley couldn't tell the difference between C7/T1 and T3? Really?

Dr. Ebersole thought the wound was closer to T4. Was he blind too?

Clint Hill, who was called to the morgue for the specific purpose of viewing Kennedy's wounds, said the back wound was "about six inches below the neckline to the right-hand side of the spinal column." Another blind man?

Sibert and O'Neill both put the back wound well below the top of the shoulder blade, as did the FBI's 9 December 1963 report on the autopsy. The ARRB released the diagrams that Kellerman, Sibert, and O'Neill drew of the back wound for the HSCA. I trust you know what those diagrams show, right? They put the wound well below the top of the shoulder blade, just as does the face sheet and the death certificate and Dr. Ebersole and Clint Hill. What a coincidence, hey?

I hope you can regain your civility, or I won't be responding to you again.