The First Shot

[Marjan Rynkiewicz]

"I am very interested in where was Altgens-6, but Zapruder doesnt show the QM after Z207, so what was the proof for Z255?"

The proof comes from an analysis of the occupants of the presidential limo shown in Altgens 6

"Z123 -- Oswald fired at Z123(say)(if Z123 existed)(hitting the signals & road) a fragment glancing JFK's head"

There is no shot at this time. We know this because the SS agents, who we can see until z207, do not react to any shot.
Also, you seem to think JFK is hit by a bullet fragment but in the Z-film he is seen smiling and waving to the crowd. He would not be doing this if he had been hit in the head.

"Z313 -- Hickey fired the accidental fatal AR15 headshot at Z313 (hitting Tague)."

 

Yes i had a look & Z255 is nearnuff Altgens-6.
Re a fragment glancing JFK's head, thats my guess, based on JFK saying my god i have been hit or similar according to Kellerman. I dont think that JFK said anything when hit at Z218-Z224, so it had to be in response to the Z123 shot.  Some small lead fragments would be enuff to initially worry JFK & make JFK react at Z143 but not enough to make JFK go into orbit. I doubt that a fragment of signal or paint etc hit JFK (they would have found it)(except that a small piece might have stayed in JFK's hair)(& later lost).

[Andrew Mason]

When I say it takes courage to change firmly held beliefs in the face of evidence that refutes those beliefs, that wasn't anything to do with an ad hominem argument. It's the truth. But it doesn't matter.

I wouldn't say it takes courage.  I know you honestly believe that the third shot was after z313.  It just requires examining the evidence and keeping an open mind. The problem with your approach is that by using a lot of ad hominem attacks, as you and Jerry tend to do, the tendency is for you to tune out the other side because of who is making the argument rather than seriously considering the arguments based on evidence.

The problems that I have with the evidence are not because you and Jerry are making the arguments. It is because they do not fit the fundamental facts.  They are built on speculation and discarding vast amounts of consistent and independent evidence. In the end, they really do not make sense either, but that is a relatively minor point. 

The fundamental facts for which there is abundant cogent evidence are:

1.  the shot pattern was 1........2....3 with the last two shots perceptibly closer together, in "rapid succession". 
2.  there were 3 shots.

We all agree on point 2.

Point 1. tells us that JFK was hit on the first shot. This is well supported by the evidence as you have pointed out.

These two fundamental facts do not establish that there was a shot around z270.  That is established in two ways:

a) JBC being wounded on the second shot or
b) the headshot being the last shot.

There is strong evidence for a) and really no evidence that he was hit on any other shot.  There is also strong evidence for b) but some evidence that may suggest it is not correct.

Regarding the evidence that the last shot was the head shot:  Everyone in the president's car and in the QM including Clint Hill who was between the cars said that the headshot was the last shot. (Clint Hill did not recall a second shot but he accepts from what others in the QM told him that there was a shot while he was running toward the car before the one that he saw hit the president.  This is set out in Gerald Blaines book "The Kennedy Detail").

I accept, based on all the evidence, that the head shot was the last shot not only because of this evidence but also because of the evidence that JBC was hit in the back on the second shot.  There is consistent evidence that the second shot struck JBC in the back (from Powers, JBC, Nellie, Newman, Hickey, Greer etc) and no evidence that it did not.   This necessarily means the headshot was the last. 

So this leads inescapably to the conclusion that there was a shot just before the headshot. 

In trying to pinpoint when the shot occurred I noticed a number of anomalous little details in the zfilm. Maybe I am wrong.  Maybe the second shot occurred at z268 or z273 but I do not think so for many reasons which I have given. I believe the evidence indicates that the shot - which other evidence says must have occurred around 2 seconds before the head shot - occurred between z271 and z272.  I am not persuaded of that because of those anomalous details seen in the zfilm. I am persuaded because of the fundamental facts and the third shot being the last shot. 

So, I am not going to be persuaded by some argument based on interpretation of the zfilm around z270.  I am only going to be persuaded by evidence that the third shot was after z313 and missed that is so strong that it outweighs the clear and consistent evidence that we do have that the headshot was the last shot.  So, you see, it has nothing to do with courage.

[Dan O'meara]

I wouldn't say it takes courage.  I know you honestly believe that the third shot was after z313.  It just requires examining the evidence and keeping an open mind. The problem with your approach is that by using a lot of ad hominem attacks, as you and Jerry tend to do, the tendency is for you to tune out the other side because of who is making the argument rather than seriously considering the arguments based on evidence.

The problems that I have with the evidence are not because you and Jerry are making the arguments. It is because they do not fit the fundamental facts.  They are built on speculation and discarding vast amounts of consistent and independent evidence. In the end, they really do not make sense either, but that is a relatively minor point. 

The fundamental facts for which there is abundant cogent evidence are:

1.  the shot pattern was 1........2....3 with the last two shots perceptibly closer together, in "rapid succession". 
2.  there were 3 shots.

We all agree on point 2.

Point 1. tells us that JFK was hit on the first shot. This is well supported by the evidence as you have pointed out.

These two fundamental facts do not establish that there was a shot around z270.  That is established in two ways:

a) JBC being wounded on the second shot or
b) the headshot being the last shot.

There is strong evidence for a) and really no evidence that he was hit on any other shot.  There is also strong evidence for b) but some evidence that may suggest it is not correct.

Regarding the evidence that the last shot was the head shot:  Everyone in the president's car and in the QM including Clint Hill who was between the cars said that the headshot was the last shot. (Clint Hill did not recall a second shot but he accepts from what others in the QM told him that there was a shot while he was running toward the car before the one that he saw hit the president.  This is set out in Gerald Blaines book "The Kennedy Detail").

I accept, based on all the evidence, that the head shot was the last shot not only because of this evidence but also because of the evidence that JBC was hit in the back on the second shot.  There is consistent evidence that the second shot struck JBC in the back (from Powers, JBC, Nellie, Newman, Hickey, Greer etc) and no evidence that it did not.   This necessarily means the headshot was the last. 

So this leads inescapably to the conclusion that there was a shot just before the headshot. 

In trying to pinpoint when the shot occurred I noticed a number of anomalous little details in the zfilm. Maybe I am wrong.  Maybe the second shot occurred at z268 or z273 but I do not think so for many reasons which I have given. I believe the evidence indicates that the shot - which other evidence says must have occurred around 2 seconds before the head shot - occurred between z271 and z272.  I am not persuaded of that because of those anomalous details seen in the zfilm. I am persuaded because of the fundamental facts and the third shot being the last shot. 

So, I am not going to be persuaded by some argument based on interpretation of the zfilm around z270.  I am only going to be persuaded by evidence that the third shot was after z313 and missed that is so strong that it outweighs the clear and consistent evidence that we do have that the headshot was the last shot.  So, you see, it has nothing to do with courage.

This is your "convenient misremembering" strategy. You just pretend all the arguments that have demolished your model in the previous  pages simply haven't happened. To be honest, I prefer it to the lying.

The Gif below shows z271 and z272. You say, " I am not going to be persuaded by some argument based on interpretation of the zfilm around z270". But this isn't 'some interpretation', this is your interpretation:
This is the moment the bullet exits JBC's chest and shatters his wrist. The bullet fragments on contact, one passes through his wrist causing a small slit-like wound near the crease of his wrist, some metallic fragments are embedded in his wrist and some fragments deflect off his wrist and still have enough energy to crack the windshield and dent the chrome trim.
If I've got anything wrong here please correct it.
You expect people to believe a bullet shattering his wrist and then fragmenting off to cause the chrome and windshield damage does not have enough force to move his wrist one inch.
You are asking people to accept a physical impossibility.
That you don't acknowledge this obvious fact says a lot about you and how unreasonable you are.

[Andrew Mason]

This is your "convenient misremembering" strategy. You just pretend all the arguments that have demolished your model in the previous  pages simply haven't happened. To be honest, I prefer it to the lying.

You don't seem to have grasped the concept of an ad hominem argument and why it is a poor debate tactic. I say that because you insist that you are not taking an ad hominem approach but still keep making ad hominem remarks.

The first rule of good debate is that you never resort to the ad hominem accusation that someone is lying. If they have contradicted themselves, you point out the contradiction.  You never conclude someone is not being honest simply because they do not agree with your argument.  For some reason you still persist in taking this approach. 

The Gif below shows z271band z272. You say, " I am not going to be persuaded by some argument based on interpretation of the zfilm around z270". But this isn't 'some interpretation', this is your interpretation:
This is the moment the bullet exits JBC's chest and shatters his wrist. The bullet fragments on contact, one passes through his wrist causing a small slit-like wound near the crease of his wrist, some metallic fragments are embedded in his wrist and some fragments deflect off his wrist and still have enough energy to crack the windshield and dent the chrome trim.
If I've got anything wrong here please correct it.

I am saying to you that no amount of argument about what you think z271-272 would look like if a bullet struck JBC in the back and wrist there will persuade me that any of the following are false:

1. the shot pattern was 1.......2....3 with the last two in rapid succession.
2. there were exactly 3 shots
3. the head shot was the last shot and (equivalently)
4. JBC was hit in the back on the second shot.

That is because I honestly believe those four facts are established on all the evidence on an overwhelming balance of probabilities.  Those four facts mean there WAS a shot at z270 or so AND it struck JBC. 

If you cannot accept that the details seen in the zfilm are consistent with that (particularly the sudden forward movement of JBC relative to JFK and Kellerman beginning at z271, Greer's turn at z281-287, JFK's hair at z273-276, the visor movement at z271-272, the alignment of the hole in the jacket sleeve with the hole in the jacket pocket and the jagged aperture in the french cuff at z271) then they are remarkably coincidental.

Now you will not find many LNers on this board who would disagree with 2, 3 and 4.  But they do disagree with 1.  You, on the other hand, agree with 1 and 2 but not with 3 and 4.  You have persuaded yourself that the last shot was not the head shot.  This means you must also persuade yourself that JBC was not hit on the second shot. I understand why you think that. I am just not persuaded that you are correct.   Most LNers on this board would also disagree with you on that.

The bottom line is that there is abundant support for each of those four facts. That means there was a shot around z270.  It is just that there is no one except me and the Secret Service, it appears, who is persuaded by the evidence that all four are correct.

You expect people to believe a bullet shattering his wrist and then fragmenting off to cause the chrome and windshield damage does not have enough force to move his wrist one inch.
You are asking people to accept a physical impossibility.

It is not a matter of the force applied by the bullet. It is the net force that matters.  The integral of the net force over time applied to the wrist determines that. That tells you how much momentum is imparted to the wrist.  Are you suggesting that the wrist would move visibly if it was pinned against his chest with sufficient force for sufficient time to negate any momentum imparted by the bullet?  How is that impossible?

[Dan O'meara]

You don't seem to have grasped the concept of an ad hominem argument and why it is a poor debate tactic. I say that because you insist that you are not taking an ad hominem approach but still keep making ad hominem remarks.

The first rule of good debate is that you never resort to the ad hominem accusation that someone is lying. If they have contradicted themselves, you point out the contradiction.  You never conclude someone is not being honest simply because they do not agree with your argument.  For some reason you still persist in taking this approach. 

They are not ad hominem remarks. They are labels I've given to the various strategies you use regularly to avoid reasonable debate.
If you'd contradicted yourself I would have pointed that out. But you didn't and the word I've given to what you did is "lying" which is the most accurate word I can find for it.
You try to present yourself as a reasonable person but this thread is a record of how you've really approached this debate.

I am saying to you that no amount of argument about what you think z271-272 would look like if a bullet struck JBC in the back and wrist there will persuade me that any of the following are false:

1. the shot pattern was 1.......2....3 with the last two in rapid succession.
2. there were exactly 3 shots
3. the head shot was the last shot and (equivalently)
4. JBC was hit in the back on the second shot.

That is because I honestly believe those four facts are established on all the evidence on an overwhelming balance of probabilities.  Those four facts mean there WAS a shot at z270 or so AND it struck JBC. 

None of these are "facts", as well you know. We may agree on certain interpretations of the evidence but it doesn't make them facts.
Point 4. is nothing more than your own interpretation of very selective scraps of evidence picked specifically to 'confirm' what you already believe about the shots.

If you cannot accept that the details seen in the zfilm are consistent with that (particularly the sudden forward movement of JBC relative to JFK and Kellerman beginning at z271, Greer's turn at z281-287, JFK's hair at z273-276, the visor movement at z271-272, the alignment of the hole in the jacket sleeve with the hole in the jacket pocket and the jagged aperture in the french cuff at z271) then they are remarkably coincidental.

These are the few scraps of evidence you hang onto to promote your theory. There is nothing coincidental about any of it. You have looked at the Z-film around the z270's and picked out anything you see and tried to create a narrative out of it.

Now you will not find many LNers on this board who would disagree with 2, 3 and 4.  But they do disagree with 1.  You, on the other hand, agree with 1 and 2 but not with 3 and 4.

Really, I was under the impression that LNers thought the single bullet theory was correct. Where have you got your information from?

You have persuaded yourself that the last shot was not the head shot.  This means you must also persuade yourself that JBC was not hit on the second shot.

Unlike you I let the evidence inform my opinion. You use the evidence to prop up your preconceived notions.
This thread is full of the evidence that has informed my opinion.

The bottom line is that there is abundant support for each of those four facts. That means there was a shot around z270.  It is just that there is no one except me and the Secret Service, it appears, who is persuaded by the evidence that all four are correct.
It is not a matter of the force applied. It is the net force multiplied by the time over which it is applied that matters. That tells you how much momentum is imparted to the wrist.  Are you suggesting that the wrist would move if it was pinned against his chest with sufficient force for sufficient time to absorb any momentum imparted by the bullet?  How is that impossible?

"The bottom line is that there is abundant support for each of those four facts"

There is very little evidence to support the "fact" ( ) that JBC is shot in the back around z271 and irrefutable evidence against it. Your inability to accept that evidence is indicative of your genuine approach to evidence. It should inform your opinions.

"It is not a matter of the force applied. It is the net force multiplied by the time over which it is applied that matters. That tells you how much momentum is imparted to the wrist."

This is utter  and reveals your desperation to avoid the overwhelming evidence that refutes your model.

"Are you suggesting that the wrist would move if it was pinned against his chest with sufficient force for sufficient time to absorb any momentum imparted by the bullet?"

I'm suggesting that a bullet fragmenting on contact with his wrist would subject his wrist to the same force it takes to fragment a bullet.
Newton's laws of motion still apply (for most of us anyway)

[Andrew Mason]

They are not ad hominem remarks. They are labels I've given to the various strategies you use regularly to avoid reasonable debate.
If you'd contradicted yourself I would have pointed that out. But you didn't and the word I've given to what you did is "lying" which is the most accurate word I can find for it.

When you accuse someone of "lying" you are referring to the person, not their argument.  That is because the difference between uttering something that you consider to be false and lying is entirely related to the bona-fides of the person uttering, not the substance of what was uttered.

None of these are "facts", as well you know. We may agree on certain interpretations of the evidence but it doesn't make them facts.

How do you know they are not "facts".  Do you think facts do not exist?

Facts exist.  We just have to determine what they are.  In order to correctly analyze a complicated case it is useful to establish a primary set of facts that are well supported by the evidence.  These are the fundamental facts.  If those facts are correct, then all the other factual details must fit them.  There can be contradictory evidence, but not contradictory facts.

I say that these four statements are facts because there are large bodies of mutually consistent, independent evidence to support these findings and very little evidence that would support a contrary conclusion.  But we must test these conclusions of "fact" against all the evidence including any new evidence that emerges. 

Point 4. is nothing more than your own interpretation of very selective scraps of evidence picked specifically to 'confirm' what you already believe about the shots.

I am surprised that you would refer such a fundamental part of the testimony of JBC and Nellie as "selective scraps of evidence".   JBC and Nellie both said he was not hit in the back on the first shot and was not hit on the second. They both said they were so sure of this that they would never change their views.  They never did. Gayle Newman was just a few feet west of the light pole so she was directly opposite JBC at z271 - about 15 feet away. She gave a statement a few hours after the events (DPD statement November 22, 1963. 24H218) in which she said:

• "After I heard the first shot, another shot sounded and Governor Connally kind of grabbed his chest and lay back on the seat of the car. Just about the time President Kennedy was right in front of us, I heard another shot ring out and the President put his hands up to his head. I saw blood all over the side of his head."
  

David Powers was directly behind JBC and JFK and he could see JBC until the second shot, after which JBC disappeared.  He said the third shot struck JFK in the head.

These are not scraps of evidence selectively taken out of context. They are fundamental parts of what these witnesses reported observing with their eyes and ears.

These are the few scraps of evidence you hang onto to promote your theory. There is nothing coincidental about any of it. You have looked at the Z-film around the z270's and picked out anything you see and tried to create a narrative out of it.

If they were not coincidental then they are related. 

Really, I was under the impression that LNers thought the single bullet theory was correct. Where have you got your information from?

?? I am surprised by your question.

Every LNer on this board except you thinks that JBC was hit on the second shot.  I happen to differ from their views that the first shot missed and that the shot pattern was 1....2.......3.  You are the lone LNer who now thinks that the SBT occurred on the first shot. 
 

"The bottom line is that there is abundant support for each of those four facts"

There is very little evidence to support the "fact" ( ) that JBC is shot in the back around z271 and irrefutable evidence against it. Your inability to accept that evidence is indicative of your genuine approach to evidence. It should inform your opinions.

I don't think you can say that there is irrefutable evidence against it.  Evidence that JBC was hit in the back on the second shot refutes it.

Besides, JBC being hit at z271 is not one of the four fundamental facts that I referred to.  That JBC is shot in the back around z271 is an inescapable conclusion, however, if those 4 statements of fact are correct.

"It is not a matter of the force applied. It is the net force multiplied by the time over which it is applied that matters. That tells you how much momentum is imparted to the wrist."

This is utter  and reveals your desperation to avoid the overwhelming evidence that refutes your model.

You just have to recall your high school physics.  Momentum transferred is the impulse ∫Fdt over the duration of the force.  The duration of the force would be the time the bullet was in contact with the wrist, which is about .01/300 = .000033 sec or .033  ms. (assuming bullet average speed of 300 m/sec and the contact was over a 1 cm distance on the wrist).  The force is the net force applied to the wrist (Bullet force less opposing force pressing wrist to chest). 

"Are you suggesting that the wrist would move if it was pinned against his chest with sufficient force for sufficient time to absorb any momentum imparted by the bullet?"

I'm suggesting that a bullet fragmenting on contact with his wrist would subject his wrist to the same force it takes to fragment a bullet.
Newton's laws of motion still apply (for most of us anyway)

Again, it is not just the force.  It is the force x time over which the force is applied that determines the transfer of momentum.

The pressure on the bone (force per unit area) determines whether the bone yields to the bullet.  The force on the bone is the yield pressure x the area.  Based on the size of the bullet, the area of the contact between bone and bullet is about  .5 x .5 cm = .25 cm².

To estimate the bullet force: The bullet pressure on the radius was sufficient to cause a fracture of the radius and, according to Larry SPersonivan (3 HSCA 396), the yield pressure of bone is 10¹⁰ dynes/cm².  That is the maximum pressure that the bone can apply to the bullet. Assuming a bullet contact area of .25 cm² on the wrist that means the force was about 2.5 x 10⁹ dynes or  2.5 x 10⁴Newtons. That is equivalent to the force of 2.5 tonnes of weight.  But the problem is that it only lasts for a very short time: the time it takes for the bullet travelling at about 300 m/sec to move 1 cm. (.01/300 = .000033 sec. or 3.3 x 10^-5 sec.).  Let's assume a constant force of 2.5 x 10⁴Newtons for 3.3 x 10^-5 seconds:  impulse =  8.25 x 10^-1 N.sec.  That is equivalent to a 82.5 gram weight pulling on the wrist for 1 second.

Now, if the unconstrained wrist had a mass of 825 grams (about 2 lb) the wrist would move at 1 m/sec or about 5 cm or two inches in one frame.  And that is if there is no force pressing on the wrist toward the chest.  If the wrist was pressed into the chest as it appears, there would be very slight movement away from the chest before the wrist stopped.

[Dan O'meara]

When you accuse someone of "lying" you are referring to the person, not their argument.  That is because the difference between uttering something that you consider to be false and lying is entirely related to the bona-fides of the person uttering, not the substance of what was uttered.

As I say, "lying" was just the most accurate label I could think of for that particular strategy. If you'd prefer "deliberate falsification" we can use that instead.
It's got nothing to do with me if the strategies you use to make a mockery of reasoned debate reflect on you as a person.
And if you think I'm not going to point out these strategies in case it hurts your feelings...you must be dreaming.

How do you know they are not "facts".  Do you think facts do not exist?

Facts exist.  We just have to determine what they are.  In order to correctly analyze a complicated case it is useful to establish a primary set of facts that are well supported by the evidence.  These are the fundamental facts.  If those facts are correct, then all the other factual details must fit them.  There can be contradictory evidence, but not contradictory facts.

It's a fact that the majority of witnesses describe three clearly audible shots. From this fact we conclude that, on probability the best interpretation is that did indeed happen. But this interpretation of the evidence doesn't make it a "fact".

I say that these four statements are facts because there are large bodies of mutually consistent, independent evidence to support these findings and very little evidence that would support a contrary conclusion.  But we must test these conclusions of "fact" against all the evidence including any new evidence that emerges.

"... we must test these conclusions of "fact" against all the evidence..."

Give it a try sometime

I am surprised that you would refer such a fundamental part of the testimony of JBC and Nellie as "selective scraps of evidence".   JBC and Nellie both said he was not hit in the back on the first shot and was not hit on the second. They both said they were so sure of this that they would never change their views.

Strategy - Convenient misremembering
Neliie's reliability as a witness is undermined by the fact she describes the shot that hit JBC at a time when she was looking forward (plus many other inconsistencies). This has been dealt with in this thread but you forget that.
When applying JBC's testimony to the Z-film you dismiss almost every salient point he makes in his testimony except the one that suits you. This has also been dealt with in detail in this thread but you forget.

Gayle Newman was just a few feet west of the light pole so she was directly opposite JBC at z271 - about 15 feet away. She gave a statement a few hours after the events (DPD statement November 22, 1963. 24H218) in which she said:

"After I heard the first shot, another shot sounded and Governor Connally kind of grabbed his chest and lay back on the seat of the car. Just about the time President Kennedy was right in front of us, I heard another shot ring out and the President put his hands up to his head. I saw blood all over the side of his head."

Strategy - reliance on contradictory eye witness testimony
Okay, let's play "contradictory witnesses"

Bill Newman, husband of Gayle, stood right next to her, witnessing what she was witnessing:

"... the President’s car was some fifty feet in front of us still yet in front of us coming toward us when we heard the first shot...And then as the car got directly in front of us well a gunshot apparently from behind us hit the President in the side of the temple.”

As far as Bill is concerned the second shot was the headshot, contradicting his wife's testimony. Where does this get us?

David Powers was directly behind JBC and JFK and he could see JBC until the second shot, after which JBC disappeared.  He said the third shot struck JFK in the head.

So what?

These are not scraps of evidence selectively taken out of context. They are fundamental parts of what these witnesses reported observing with their eyes and ears.
If they were not coincidental then they are related. 

They are related by the narrative you have woven them into. That's all.

Every LNer on this board except you thinks that JBC was hit on the second shot.  I happen to differ from their views that the first shot missed and that the shot pattern was 1....2.......3.  You are the lone LNer who now thinks that the SBT occurred on the first shot. 
  I don't think you can say that there is irrefutable evidence against it.  Evidence that JBC was hit in the back on the second shot refutes it.

I'm an LNer??

Besides, JBC being hit at z271 is not one of the four fundamental facts that I referred to.  That JBC is shot in the back around z271 is an inescapable conclusion, however, if those 4 statements of fact are correct.

Strategy - shifting the goalposts

You just have to recall your high school physics.  Momentum transferred is the impulse ∫Fdt over the duration of the force.  The duration of the force would be the time the bullet was in contact with the wrist, which is about .01/300 = .000033 sec or .033  ms. (assuming bullet average speed of 300 m/sec and the contact was over a 1 cm distance on the wrist).  The force is the net force applied to the wrist (Bullet force less opposing force pressing wrist to chest). 
Again, it is not just the force.  It is the force x time over which the force is applied that determines the transfer of momentum.

The pressure on the bone (force per unit area) determines whether the bone yields to the bullet.  The force on the bone is the yield pressure x the area.  Based on the size of the bullet, the area of the contact between bone and bullet is about  .5 x .5 cm = .25 cm².

To estimate the bullet force: The bullet pressure on the radius was sufficient to cause a fracture of the radius and, according to Larry SPersonivan (3 HSCA 396), the yield pressure of bone is 10¹⁰ dynes/cm².  That is the maximum pressure that the bone can apply to the bullet. Assuming a bullet contact area of .25 cm² on the wrist that means the force was about 2.5 x 10⁹ dynes or  2.5 x 10⁴Newtons. That is equivalent to the force of 2.5 tonnes of weight.  But the problem is that it only lasts for a very short time: the time it takes for the bullet travelling at about 300 m/sec to move 1 cm. (.01/300 = .000033 sec. or 3.3 x 10^-5 sec.).  Let's assume a constant force of 2.5 x 10⁴Newtons for 3.3 x 10^-5 seconds:  impulse =  8.25 x 10^-1 N.sec.  That is equivalent to a 82.5 gram weight pulling on the wrist for 1 second.

Now, if the unconstrained wrist had a mass of 825 grams (about 2 lb) the wrist would move at 1 m/sec or about 5 cm or two inches in one frame.  And that is if there is no force pressing on the wrist toward the chest.  If the wrist was pressed into the chest as it appears, there would be very slight movement away from the chest before the wrist stopped.

So the momentum transferred to JBC's wrist only applies to one Z-frame, after which it miraculously disappears?
So the force that shattered the bullet is not equally applied to JBC's wrist?

[Andrew Mason]

As I say, "lying" was just the most accurate label I could think of for that particular strategy. If you'd prefer "deliberate falsification" we can use that instead.
It's got nothing to do with me if the strategies you use to make a mockery of reasoned debate reflect on you as a person.
And if you think I'm not going to point out these strategies in case it hurts your feelings...you must be dreaming.

I guess I missed something somewhere.  What "falsification" are you suggesting that I have done? Or is that just something you throw out as a smokescreen to cover up a lack of reasoned argument?  You have not identified one item that I have put forward as evidence that is false.  Not a single one. You just make a general statement that I somehow lied.  It doesn't bother me.  I am just trying to improve your rhetorical skills.

It's a fact that the majority of witnesses describe three clearly audible shots. From this fact we conclude that, on probability the best interpretation is that did indeed happen. But this interpretation of the evidence doesn't make it a "fact".

"... we must test these conclusions of "fact" against all the evidence..."

Give it a try sometime

So.... you don't think there are facts at all, just evidence?  Is it not a fact that JFK was hit in the head by a bullet?  Or do you think that is debateable too?  Some posters actually have questioned that, by the way.

Strategy - Convenient misremembering
Nellie's reliability as a witness is undermined by the fact she describes the shot that hit JBC at a time when she was looking forward (plus many other inconsistencies). This has been dealt with in this thread but you forget that.

That, of course, is premised on your view that JBC was hit in the back at z223 when she was looking forward.  If you conclude, as I have, that JBC was not hit there but was hit at z271 when she was looking right at him, then she was truthful.  Conversely, if you use her evidence to determine when he was hit, one would have to conclude that he was not hit until z270 when she turned and looked at him.

When applying JBC's testimony to the Z-film you dismiss almost every salient point he makes in his testimony except the one that suits you. This has also been dealt with in detail in this thread but you forget.

No I don't.  I accept most of the things that he very confidently recalled before he was hit in the back.  I am less accepting of small details he recalled at the time of or after he was hit. That's all. 

Strategy - reliance on contradictory eye witness testimony
Okay, let's play "contradictory witnesses"

Bill Newman, husband of Gayle, stood right next to her, witnessing what she was witnessing:

"... the President’s car was some fifty feet in front of us still yet in front of us coming toward us when we heard the first shot...And then as the car got directly in front of us well a gunshot apparently from behind us hit the President in the side of the temple.”

As far as Bill is concerned the second shot was the headshot, contradicting his wife's testimony. Where does this get us?

There was no contradiction at all. In his first statement (19H490) he mentioned two shots but he did not say that there were only two shots.  In his November 24/63 FBI statement (22H842) he said that the shot that struck the President in the head and the previous shot were about 2 seconds apart and he said that the head shot was the third and last shot.

Not seeing exactly what his wife saw does not mean he contradicts what she said.  Different witnesses focus on different things. Obviously Gayle Newman was looking at JBC.  Bill Newman said he was looking right at JFK as the car passed.  In fact, their statements as a whole are quite consistent and they are consistent with 3 shots, 3 hits and a second shot about 2 seconds before the head shot.

I'm an LNer??

You are not?  Who do you think was shooting?

So the momentum transferred to JBC's wrist only applies to one Z-frame, after which it miraculously disappears?

That depends on the opposing force.  The momentum transfer, according to that calculation, was .825 N. sec. or .825 kg m/sec.  That means that a force equivalent to the weight 1.65 kg (16.5 Newtons) for 1/20th of a second or one frame would stop it.  So a force of less than 4 lb (weight) applied to the wrist would completely stop any motion of the wrist caused by the bullet impact within one frame. The wrist going from 1 m/sec to 0 in 1/20th of a second would move but only about 2.5 cm or an inch.

So the force that shattered the bullet is not equally applied to JBC's wrist?

The force is not equally applied to the wrist but I am assuming that the force for the entire duration of contact was the maximum force. The maximum force would be the force applied to bone that causes bone to break.  The force is greatest where it impacts bone and less where it impacts soft tissue.