Users Currently Browsing This Topic:
0 Members

Author Topic: Would A Bullet Really Knock You Backwards? DEBUNKED  (Read 12431 times)

Offline Mitch Todd

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 920
Re: Would A Bullet Really Knock You Backwards? DEBUNKED
« Reply #16 on: May 19, 2023, 06:58:41 AM »
Advertisement
Mitch

I agree. I think JFK was leaning to the left. It appears Jackie was pushing Jack's left elbow down, to get a better view of his face to see what was the matter. With his arms being fairly rigid due to the neck wound, that would rotate the torso some to the left.

We don't know how Jackie affected JFK's movement during z312-z318.

JFK was sitting pretty upright. So gravity wouldn't have had much of an effect, at least before z317. Before z317, the acceleration of JFK's head was up to 0.25 G's. JFK would have to be tilted back by around 15 degrees to get that amount of acceleration ( 1 G * sin(15) ). I don't think he was tilted back nearly that much. If anything, he was leaning forward some at z312. JFK's backwards acceleration was not caused by gravity. Nor by the way too small acceleration of the limousine during that time, that was practically moving at a steady speed.

But we know that not all of JFK's post z312 movement was caused by Jackie. At z-316 through z-318, JFK's right elbow suddenly j-e-r-k-s up 6 inches, than falls limply down. That is clearly caused by a neurological spasm.
Look at the Muchmore film, which shows the amount of lean most clearly. JFK is leaning to the left much more than you think. And yes, I just had to say it that way. This is about five frames before the last shot:



BTW, I'm not putting the whole kitty on one cause or another. Just that there are forces acting on JFK that ought to be considered, but never seem to be.




JFK Assassination Forum

Re: Would A Bullet Really Knock You Backwards? DEBUNKED
« Reply #16 on: May 19, 2023, 06:58:41 AM »


Offline Joe Elliott

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1727
Re: Would A Bullet Really Knock You Backwards? DEBUNKED
« Reply #17 on: May 19, 2023, 10:21:13 AM »

Look at the Muchmore film, which shows the amount of lean most clearly. JFK is leaning to the left much more than you think. And yes, I just had to say it that way. This is about five frames before the last shot:



BTW, I'm not putting the whole kitty on one cause or another. Just that there are forces acting on JFK that ought to be considered, but never seem to be.

My impression from the Zapruder film alone, which is mostly the film I look at, gave me the impression that JFK was leaning to the left before z312. The Muchmore frame that you provides proves that JFK was leaning to the left, even more than I realized.

I now think that gravity could have been an important part of JFK's movement during z312-z316. But not backwards. JFK was sitting too upright for that. If anything he was leaning forward during z312-z316. But definitely, gravity could have caused him to start falling to the left during that time period. The lean to the left was pretty pronounced. But that has little impact on the Hoffman data and shows that something was continuously accelerating JFK's head backwards from z313-z318. It wasn't gravity, it wasn't the very small acceleration of the limousine during this period. These accelerations were too small to cause the amount of backwards acceleration of JFK's head, around a quarter of a G. It could only be caused by JFK's muscles. Which is also the only cause of JFK's elbow jerking up during z316-z318.

The Muchmore frame you provided is very helpful in establishing the pronounced lean of JFK to the left just before z312. Much more :) than the Zapruder film alone provides.

Note: I first typed in the previous line in full, except for the smiley face, before realizing it makes for a pretty good pun.

Online Andrew Mason

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1402
    • SPMLaw
Re: Would A Bullet Really Knock You Backwards? DEBUNKED
« Reply #18 on: May 19, 2023, 09:09:46 PM »
There are two problems I have.

One. As I understand it, the Law on the Conservation of Momentum is an absolute law. It must be adhered to millisecond to millisecond. Instant to instant. It's not like a checking account with overdraft protection. It can never be, even temporarily, even for just 55 millisecond, or 1 millisecond, "Out of balance".

Two. During z312-z313, there was (according to you, if I understand you correctly) the momentum of:

1. The head moving forward.
2. The forward momentum of the bullet fragments, which all three fragments together still have about half the momentum of the pristine bullet.
3. The forward momentum of organic material flying forward which we can see in z313.

It is not a simple physics problem to analyze. The impulse from the bullet and the impulse from the exploding exit wound are not in directly opposite directions. And the impulses occur at slightly different times (the time between the impact to the back of the head and the time the head opens up to release the pressure).  We don't know how much time that took.  In order to release that matter, the skull has to start moving out of the way.  And the release of pressure/explosion is not instantaneous. It continues as the skull opens up.  The different directions of these impulses affect the body differently.

In any event, we are only seeing a 25 ms. window every 55 ms. In z313 the head is certainly experiencing a force from the exploding exit wound but not from the bullet.  It is, therefore, accelerating in the direction of the force imparted by that exiting matter. 

Different directions: The bullet momentum imparted to the head is in the direction of the original bullet direction.  But the impulse from the explosive exit wound is opposite to the direction of the exploding matter, which is not the original direction of the bullet.   Brain matter explodes generally to the right and forward so the impulse will be in the leftward and rearward direction. It looks to me like the right side of his skull opens, not the forehead, so possibly the component of leftward force due to the explosive exit wound is greater than the rearward component.

Different response of body to forces in different directions: To complicate matters even further, the President was leaning forward and left and was turned to the left.  The head is not equally free to move in all directions. It is easier to move the head forward than to move it sideways.

As the head moves sideways left from the explosion impulse it is going to take the body with it.  The bullet impact causes the head pivot forward without taking the body. So it will take more time to see the head and body move in response to the explosive exit of matter from the head than to see head move in response to the bullet impact.

JFK Assassination Forum

Re: Would A Bullet Really Knock You Backwards? DEBUNKED
« Reply #18 on: May 19, 2023, 09:09:46 PM »


Offline Dan O'meara

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3160
Re: Would A Bullet Really Knock You Backwards? DEBUNKED
« Reply #19 on: May 23, 2023, 12:25:21 AM »
Alvarez did NOT ignore the impact of the bullet. He showed that the momentum ejected matter can exceed the momentum of the incoming bullet and drive the head backward (from his article: 44 Am. J. Phys. Vol 814, at page 819):
  • I concluded that the retrograde motion of the President's head, in response to the rifle bullet shot, is consistent with the law of conservation of momentum, if one pays attention to the law of conservation of energy as well, and includes the momentum of all the material in the problem. The simplest way to see where I differ from most of the critics is to note that they treat the problem as though it involved only two interacting masses: the bullet and the head. My analysis involves three interacting masses, the bullet, the jet of brain matter observable in frame 313, and the remaining part of the head. It will turn out that the jet can carry forward more momentum than was brought in by the bullet, and the head recoils backward, as a rocket recoils when its jet fuel is ejected.

It is a fact that Alvarez omitted the interaction of the incoming bullet with the skull, forcing JFK's head forward.
Not only that, as the fragments of bullet traveled through the brain tissue they eventually encountered the skull a second time - as the fragments exited the skull. This interaction also forced JFK's head forwards and this interaction is completely ignored in both Alvarez's experiments and calculations.
Both of the most significant transfer of momentum interactions are nowhere to be seen in the calculations.

Alvarez starts with a 10kg ballistic pendulum into which is fired a 10 gram bullet. From this he concludes that only 0.01% of the kinetic energy of the bullet is converted into mechanical energy upon striking the pendulum. The remaining 99.99% of the incoming kinetic energy is converted into heat.
This is easily calculated because the bullet remains in the wooden block, therefore all of it's kinetic energy is transmitted into the block in one form of energy or another.

What does this have to do with JFK's head-shot?
The answer is - absolutely nothing

It hardly needs pointing out that JFK's head is not a 10kg block of wood but that is not the real issue. When the bullet strikes JFK's head it breaks up, these fragments pass through the brain and exit the head. The majority of the bullet exits the head and is no longer a part of the head/bullet system. These fragments still have plenty of kinetic energy - one fragment cracks the windshield, one dents the chrome trim and others may have left the limo completely. All of this kinetic energy is lost to the head/bullet system whereas in the pendulum/bullet system all the kinetic energy is kept within the system because the bullet is retained in the block.
Alvarez's calculations are meaningless.

The thing is, Alvarez is aware of this discrepancy when he writes:

Ballistic pendulums are designed so that they contain the inelastically dissipated energy. Unfortunately, the human head is not able to contain the major fraction of the energy carried in.by the bullet. This tragic aspect of the assassination is clearly visible in frame 313 of the Zapruder film, and is discussed in detail in the reports of the autopsy surgeons.

However, in the very next sentence he makes it clear he is still applying his meaningless ballistic calculations to JFK's head-shot:

The mechanism of the retrograde recoil turns out to be rather simple, if one remembers that 99.9% of the incoming energy must be accounted for.

It is true Alvarez demonstrated that the momentum of the ejected matter could exceed the momentum of the bullet.
But he then concludes, for no given reason, that this ejected matter "gives the melon an equal and opposite momentum".
It's as though he assumes it is opposite because that is what he has already concluded. He seems to be saying that IF the jet of material provided opposite momentum, it could move JFK's head in the opposite direction to the that of the bullet simply because the momentum of the ejected matter is greater than the momentum of the bullet.
But the ejected matter is not competing with the momentum of the bullet, it is competing with the momentum of JFK's head.

Also, he provides no mechanism for why the matter is ejecting in the first place [in the case of any "jet effect" this has nothing to do with the transit of the bullet]. Nor does he allow for any of the ejected matter to be a result of the transit of the bullet.

His incredibly strained attempts to justify his thought process lead to bizarre statements such as this:

The melon would then recoil backward with about twice the velocity it would have been expected to go forward, assuming it were made of wood.

A melon made of wood??

Quote
It is important to use something that resembles a human skull.  The skull does two things that cause the jet effect that a melon cannot do: 1. the hard bone of the back of the skull flattens the bullet on entry so that it pushes material in its path in passing through the soft interior part of the skull and 2. the skull is a rigid enclosure for the brain so the pressure builds up in the skull as the bullet passes through.  The melon does not replicate the skull.

The jet effect is real. The best demonstration of the jet effect was done several years ago by Chad Zimmerman. Chad fired a 6.5 mm jacketed WC bullet from his Mannlicher-Carcano rifle into a suspended turkey. He strapped pork ribs to the entry side of the turkey (the left side) to simulate the skull bone.

Now, it was a big turkey much heavier than a human head and it did not move forward noticeably from the impact of the bullet, possibly due to the mass of the turkey and due to the shot being off-centre causing rotation of the turkey.  But the rearward motion, due to the massive explosion of matter, is rapid and obvious. I have taken his video frames and slowed down the first 4 frames (2 sec. per frame) and the final frames at .5 seconds per frame so you can see the direction that the turkey moves from the explosive ejection of matter:


The original video is here:

http://dufourlaw.com/JFK/turkeyribshot1a.mpg
That is not a problem at all. The leftward-rearward momentum imparted to the head is equal and opposite to the rightward/forward component of momentum of the ejected matter. Almost all of that matter goes forward and it exits outward from the right side of his head.  The only matter that does not impart a rearward/leftward impulse to the head is matter travelling at right angles to the rearward/leftward direction.  A body ejected with momentum p at a direction 45 degrees to horizontal imparts a horizontal component of momentum equal to .707p (cosine of 45 degrees).

Almost all of that matter goes forward

In the graphic I posted the main "jet" of ejected matter goes backwards relative to the position of JFK's head, which would  force JFK's head forwards and downwards. If it was part of the "jet effect". Which it isn't.
« Last Edit: May 23, 2023, 12:39:59 AM by Dan O'meara »

Offline Dan O'meara

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3160
Re: Would A Bullet Really Knock You Backwards? DEBUNKED
« Reply #20 on: May 23, 2023, 06:12:39 PM »
Neurological Spasm and why I don't buy it.

As JFK passes behind the Stemmons sign his left arm is down by his side.
As he emerges from behind the sign his left arm is in the same position.
Suddenly, it rockets up from his side until both his arms are in this extreme position;



It takes less than half a second to achieve this extreme posture, it is an incredibly rapid movement.
Both elbows appear to extended fully upwards in an extraordinary manner, his hands clench shut apart from the index finger of his left hand which points rigidly, his fists are balled up near his chin and he seems to sit bolt upright.
For the briefest moment he is held in this rigid, extreme posture before relaxing and slumping towards Jackie.
I believe this incredibly rapid movement and extreme posture are a reflex reaction, a neurological spasm, if you will, a feature of which is the stiffening of JFK's upper body.
However, when we examine the head-shot there appears to be no such rigidity present, JFK seems to flop around, his head and arm movement appear completely loose.

There are 16 neck muscles - 4 Suboccipital, 4 Suprahyoid, 4 Infrahyoid and 3 paired sets of Scalene muscles.
These control the various movements of the head - side to side, backwards/forwards and swiveling.
It is an incredibly complex part of the body.
If Neurological Spasm is present during the head-shot, I see no reason why, out of all the neck muscles, only the muscles involving the backwards movement of the head should be involved.
Also, going back to the first point, if these neck muscles were involved why wouldn't they hold the head in the backwards position. This is not shown in the Z-film.

You seem to be proposing a very brief triggering of some very specific muscles, which I, personally, don't buy.
Particularly when there is a far more straight-forward [IMO] explanation.



Different people see different things when analyzing the clip above.
I can only say what I see.
At the moment of the head-shot, the very first movement is forward.
JFK's head seems to nod forward and downward incredibly quickly and then rebound upwards and backwards.
At the moment of the head-shot JFK's head seems to be slumped forward, his chin resting against his body. The massive blow to the back of his head forces his head forwards and downwards, but, because it is already resting on his upper torso/lower neck, his head has nowhere to go and simply rebounds upwards.

No jet effect.
No neurological spasm.
« Last Edit: May 23, 2023, 06:16:13 PM by Dan O'meara »

JFK Assassination Forum

Re: Would A Bullet Really Knock You Backwards? DEBUNKED
« Reply #20 on: May 23, 2023, 06:12:39 PM »


Online Andrew Mason

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1402
    • SPMLaw
Re: Would A Bullet Really Knock You Backwards? DEBUNKED
« Reply #21 on: May 23, 2023, 11:55:37 PM »
It is a fact that Alvarez omitted the interaction of the incoming bullet with the skull, forcing JFK's head forward.
Not only that, as the fragments of bullet traveled through the brain tissue they eventually encountered the skull a second time - as the fragments exited the skull. This interaction also forced JFK's head forwards and this interaction is completely ignored in both Alvarez's experiments and calculations.
Both of the most significant transfer of momentum interactions are nowhere to be seen in the calculations.
I am not sure why you think he did not take it into account. If the bullet imparted momentum to the skull on exit, it had to have imparted less than its total momentum on entry and while plowing through the head.  It doesn't matter when during the interaction of bullet and head when momentum was transferred. His whole point was that the momentum from the explosion can easily exceed the total momentum of the incoming bullet so that the net movement is toward the shooter.

Alvarez states at p. 820 that the target moves toward the shooter if pj (momentum of the jet) exceeds pb (momentum of the bullet).  He shows how he determined that 10% of the mass ejected at 10% of the bullet speed carries momentum that exceeds the bullet momentum. 

Quote
Alvarez starts with a 10kg ballistic pendulum into which is fired a 10 gram bullet. From this he concludes that only 0.01% of the kinetic energy of the bullet is converted into mechanical energy upon striking the pendulum. The remaining 99.99% of the incoming kinetic energy is converted into heat.
This is easily calculated because the bullet remains in the wooden block, therefore all of it's kinetic energy is transmitted into the block in one form of energy or another.

What does this have to do with JFK's head-shot?
The answer is - absolutely nothing

Alvarez is using the example where there is no exploding exit wound to show that the momentum of the ballistic pendulum is, initially, in the direction of the bullet. That is how the bullet speed is determined:  vbullet=vblock+bullet x Mblock+bullet/mbullet.  The initial speed of the block + bullet is determined by measuring the height reached by the pendulum swing.  He then compares that to a situation when the target explodes sending matter forward.

Quote
It hardly needs pointing out that JFK's head is not a 10kg block of wood but that is not the real issue. When the bullet strikes JFK's head it breaks up, these fragments pass through the brain and exit the head. The majority of the bullet exits the head and is no longer a part of the head/bullet system. These fragments still have plenty of kinetic energy - one fragment cracks the windshield, one dents the chrome trim and others may have left the limo completely. All of this kinetic energy is lost to the head/bullet system whereas in the pendulum/bullet system all the kinetic energy is kept within the system because the bullet is retained in the block.
The fragments do not carry much kinetic energy.  If the bullet exited travelling at 400 fps it would have 1/25th of the original bullet energy, meaning 96% of the bullet energy was transferred to the head.

Quote
Alvarez's calculations are meaningless.

Alvarez took this all into account. In fact, he noted that even if you assume only 10% of the incoming kinetic energy is used to propel 10% of the mass of the target, the momentum of the expelled jet is 101/2 or over 3 times the momentum of the incoming bullet (p. 820):

"For example, if the bullet weighed 0.1 % of the melon weight, and if 10% of the incoming kinetic energy was used to propel 10% of the mass of the melon forward, then the momentum of the jet expelled forward would be (10)1/2 times that of the incoming bullet."

Quote
The thing is, Alvarez is aware of this discrepancy when he writes:

Ballistic pendulums are designed so that they contain the inelastically dissipated energy. Unfortunately, the human head is not able to contain the major fraction of the energy carried in.by the bullet. This tragic aspect of the assassination is clearly visible in frame 313 of the Zapruder film, and is discussed in detail in the reports of the autopsy surgeons.

However, in the very next sentence he makes it clear he is still applying his meaningless ballistic calculations to JFK's head-shot:

The mechanism of the retrograde recoil turns out to be rather simple, if one remembers that 99.9% of the incoming energy must be accounted for.

It is true Alvarez demonstrated that the momentum of the ejected matter could exceed the momentum of the bullet.
But he then concludes, for no given reason, that this ejected matter "gives the melon an equal and opposite momentum".
It's as though he assumes it is opposite because that is what he has already concluded. He seems to be saying that IF the jet of material provided opposite momentum, it could move JFK's head in the opposite direction to the that of the bullet simply because the momentum of the ejected matter is greater than the momentum of the bullet.
But the ejected matter is not competing with the momentum of the bullet, it is competing with the momentum of JFK's head.

That is a fair point. He is assuming that the ejected matter from the melon or head was in the direction of the incoming bullet.  That is how he set up his melons.  I agree that the situation with JFK was a bit different.  Since the matter explodes out of the right side of his head in many directions, the directions of ejecta and incoming bullet are not quite the same.

Quote
Also, he provides no mechanism for why the matter is ejecting in the first place [in the case of any "jet effect" this has nothing to do with the transit of the bullet]. Nor does he allow for any of the ejected matter to be a result of the transit of the bullet.

It doesn't matter what the mechanism is.  We can see the exploding exit wound.  It is obvious that it is caused by energy imparted to the head by the bullet.  All that matters is the direction it is moving, how fast it is moving and its mass. This is about physics, not biology.

Quote
His incredibly strained attempts to justify his thought process lead to bizarre statements such as this:

The melon would then recoil backward with about twice the velocity it would have been expected to go forward, assuming it were made of wood.

A melon made of wood??
You are not interpreting it correctly.  Instead of "assuming" read "if".  He is comparing the movement of the melon after the explosive exit of matter in the direction of the bullet and comparing it to how a wooden object of the same size and mass would move (ie. with no jet of matter being ejected).

Quote
In the graphic I posted the main "jet" of ejected matter goes backwards relative to the position of JFK's head, which would  force JFK's head forwards and downwards. If it was part of the "jet effect". Which it isn't.
Was JFK exempt from the laws of physics? 

We can see the matter exploding from his head. There is a visible piece of matter seen in z313 with a streak from above the head to a point that is at least a metre from the starting point. (Note: the fine spray did not penetrate into the air mass above the car as rapidly.  But the initial acceleration and its velocity coming out of the head would have been similar, and it is that velocity immediately on leaving the head that provides the impulse). 

Since we can see that streak is at least 1 m long and was created during the exposure of 25 ms. (the frame exposure time determined by Zavada), the jet travelled away from the head at a speed of about 1 m in 25 ms. That is a speed of 40 m/s.  And that assumes that the streak is not angled toward or away from the camera.

Only 150 grams of matter at that speed carries the same momentum as the maximum momentum carried by the bullet (and we know that the bullet did not impart all its momentum to the head because the bulk of it exited).
« Last Edit: May 24, 2023, 12:17:11 AM by Andrew Mason »

Offline Dan O'meara

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3160
Re: Would A Bullet Really Knock You Backwards? DEBUNKED
« Reply #22 on: May 24, 2023, 02:18:11 AM »
I am not sure why you think he did not take it into account. If the bullet imparted momentum to the skull on exit, it had to have imparted less than its total momentum on entry and while plowing through the head.  It doesn't matter when during the interaction of bullet and head when momentum was transferred. His whole point was that the momentum from the explosion can easily exceed the total momentum of the incoming bullet so that the net movement is toward the shooter.

Alvarez states at p. 820 that the target moves toward the shooter if pj (momentum of the jet) exceeds pb (momentum of the bullet).  He shows how he determined that 10% of the mass ejected at 10% of the bullet speed carries momentum that exceeds the bullet momentum. 

Alvarez is using the example where there is no exploding exit wound to show that the momentum of the ballistic pendulum is, initially, in the direction of the bullet. That is how the bullet speed is determined:  vbullet=vblock+bullet x Mblock+bullet/mbullet.  The initial speed of the block + bullet is determined by measuring the height reached by the pendulum swing.  He then compares that to a situation when the target explodes sending matter forward.
The fragments do not carry much kinetic energy.  If the bullet exited travelling at 400 fps it would have 1/25th of the original bullet energy, meaning 96% of the bullet energy was transferred to the head.

Alvarez took this all into account. In fact, he noted that even if you assume only 10% of the incoming kinetic energy is used to propel 10% of the mass of the target, the momentum of the expelled jet is 101/2 or over 3 times the momentum of the incoming bullet (p. 820):

"For example, if the bullet weighed 0.1 % of the melon weight, and if 10% of the incoming kinetic energy was used to propel 10% of the mass of the melon forward, then the momentum of the jet expelled forward would be (10)1/2 times that of the incoming bullet."

That is a fair point. He is assuming that the ejected matter from the melon or head was in the direction of the incoming bullet.  That is how he set up his melons.  I agree that the situation with JFK was a bit different.  Since the matter explodes out of the right side of his head in many directions, the directions of ejecta and incoming bullet are not quite the same.

It doesn't matter what the mechanism is.  We can see the exploding exit wound.  It is obvious that it is caused by energy imparted to the head by the bullet.  All that matters is the direction it is moving, how fast it is moving and its mass. This is about physics, not biology.
You are not interpreting it correctly.  Instead of "assuming" read "if".  He is comparing the movement of the melon after the explosive exit of matter in the direction of the bullet and comparing it to how a wooden object of the same size and mass would move (ie. with no jet of matter being ejected).
Was JFK exempt from the laws of physics? 

We can see the matter exploding from his head. There is a visible piece of matter seen in z313 with a streak from above the head to a point that is at least a metre from the starting point. (Note: the fine spray did not penetrate into the air mass above the car as rapidly.  But the initial acceleration and its velocity coming out of the head would have been similar, and it is that velocity immediately on leaving the head that provides the impulse). 

Since we can see that streak is at least 1 m long and was created during the exposure of 25 ms. (the frame exposure time determined by Zavada), the jet travelled away from the head at a speed of about 1 m in 25 ms. That is a speed of 40 m/s.  And that assumes that the streak is not angled toward or away from the camera.

Only 150 grams of matter at that speed carries the same momentum as the maximum momentum carried by the bullet (and we know that the bullet did not impart all its momentum to the head because the bulk of it exited).

His whole point was that the momentum from the explosion

Explosion?
Where does he mention an explosion?

It doesn't matter what the mechanism is.

How so?
It's the fundamental point Alvarez is supposedly demonstrating.

Online Andrew Mason

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1402
    • SPMLaw
Re: Would A Bullet Really Knock You Backwards? DEBUNKED
« Reply #23 on: May 24, 2023, 08:18:28 PM »
His whole point was that the momentum from the explosion

Explosion?
Where does he mention an explosion?
He refers to the release of matter from the head as a "jet" or "explosive jet effect".   See his footnote 13 where he states:
    "13 The fact that the bullets were soft nosed, rather than fully jacketed (as the Mannlicher-Carcano bullets were), was apparently important in intensifying the explosive jet effect."
.   We can see that it is more of an explosion in a wide range of directions rather than a directed jet.  But the effect is the same: the head recoils with momentum equal in magnitude and opposite in direction to the total momentum of the ejected matter.

Quote
It doesn't matter what the mechanism is.

How so?
It's the fundamental point Alvarez is supposedly demonstrating.
I am not sure why you think that the mechanism is important.  We can see the explosive exit wound.  Alvarez was trying to compare the momentum of the "jet" to the momentum of the bullet.  All he needs to know is how much momentum the bullet transferred to the head.

The bullet is transferring momentum when it slows down. The amount of momentum transferred is: bullet mass x change in bullet velocity from the entry to the exit of the bullet.   Alvarez just assumed the maximum (ie. all) bullet momentum was transferred to the head. Using a estimates of velocity and mass of the ejecta, he showed that the momentum of the ejected matter (which is equal to the impulse to the head in the opposite direction) could easily exceed the maximum bullet momentum.

JFK Assassination Forum

Re: Would A Bullet Really Knock You Backwards? DEBUNKED
« Reply #23 on: May 24, 2023, 08:18:28 PM »