Debunking the "Jet Effect"?

[William Batts]

Does deceleration of the limousine, moments before & during the fatal headshot, disprove the so called "Jet Effect" & explains why the President & everyone else in the vehicle moved slightly forward? In this video by Gil Jesus, between frames 312 & 313 specifically, we can see this taking place. Thoughts?

Also this debunking of Lattimer and Alvarez -

[John Mytton]

As usual Gil Jesus is completely wrong, Kennedy's head(as opposed to all the other objects in the Limo), when shot from behind definitely is propelled down and away from Oswald's rifle.



This high contrast image of Zapruder frame 313 shows a clear expulsion of matter out the front.



In fact the back of head authenticated autopsy photos show no massive blowout but do show a bullet entrance.



I personably believe that a number of factors were inducive in the back and to the left motion;

1. Kennedys back brace prevented Kennedy from leaning forward.


2. The easily replicated Jet Effect.




3. The neurologic reaction.

JohnM

[Dan O'meara]

When we blow up a balloon but don't tie it off and let go, the balloon flies about all over the place - that is the Jet Effect.
To imply that's how JFK's head acted when he was shot is, by far, the most excruciatingly embarrassing proposal made in all of the literature on the JFK assassination.
And that is really saying something.

[John Mytton]

When we blow up a balloon but don't tie it off and let go, the balloon flies about all over the place - that is the Jet Effect.
To imply that's how JFK's head acted when he was shot is, by far, the most excruciatingly embarrassing proposal made in all of the literature on the JFK assassination.
And that is really saying something.

Thanks Dan, your valuable layman input and interesting analogy is noted and appreciated but you do realize that the Jet Effect was endorsed by Professor Luiz Alvarez who won the Nobel Prize in Physics, so sorry old chum but a Full House will always beat a pair of deuces.

JohnM

[Steve M. Galbraith]

Thanks Dan, your valuable layman input and interesting analogy is noted and appreciated but you do realize that the Jet Effect was endorsed by Professor Luiz Alvarez who won the Nobel Prize in Physics, so sorry old chum but a Full House will always beat a pair of deuces.

JohnM

Is the conspiracy argument or response that *nothing* would happen to the head as this skull material/matter explodes out the top/right of the head? No recoil? Nothing? We can argue how much and that Alvarez's explanation is an overreach.

The physicist Ken Rahn explains the theory this way. As the bullet passes through the brain

 "The pressure builds up isotropically (equally in all directions) inside the head, because the pressure is no longer linked directly to the movement of the bullet. Thus it is not usually possible to predict which part of the head will give way first, other than to note that the weakest parts of the head will generally be the front (the vicinity of the eye sockets) and wherever the bullet left the head. The latter effect is caused by the bullet blasting a larger hole where it leaves than where it enters (because by the time it leaves, the bullet is tumbling and so presents a greater cross-section to the point of exit than to the point of entrance). In the special case where the head is hit from behind, both the exit hole and the weakest parts of the skull will lie at the front of the skull, and it can be reasonably expected that the bulk of the fragments will be expelled frontward.

And most important: "This second phase of the collision imparts a second movement to the head. If fragments are ejected in a preferential direction, they will cause the head to recoil in the opposite direction."

Why won't this recoil happen?

The rest here: https://kenrahn.com/JFK/Scientific_topics/Physics_of_head_shot/4-Wound_ballistics.html

And here:
https://kenrahn.com/JFK/Issues_and_evidence/Frontal_shot(s)/Tobias_frontal_shots/Jet_effect.html

[Dan O'meara]

Thanks Dan, your valuable layman input and interesting analogy is noted and appreciated but you do realize that the Jet Effect was endorsed by Professor Luiz Alvarez who won the Nobel Prize in Physics, so sorry old chum but a Full House will always beat a pair of deuces.

JohnM

 
Didn't realise you were some kind of physics expert, John.
I didn't provide an analogy.
I described exactly what the Jet Effect is.
Release the balloon, watch it fly about - its movement is a result of the Jet Effect.
That is what Nobel Prize winner Alvarez is proposing - a JET of brain matter exiting JFK's head drove it backwards in exactly the same way a JET of air escaping a balloon causes it to fly around.
The balloon is not an analogy.

Many are willing to swallow it down because Alvarez won the Nobel prize.
Not because they've thought about it. Not because they've weighed up the pros and cons.
It's very similar to the way all LNers swallow down the predetermined narrative of the Warren Commission like little birds in the nest when a parent shows up with food (that is an analogy, by the way).
They don't have to think about it - their thinking has been done for them. Their opinions have been provided.

Maybe it takes a layman to point out that the Emperor isn't actually wearing any clothes.
Anyone can see that.
Unless they are blinded by the Emperor's shiny prizes.

[Dan O'meara]

Is the conspiracy argument or response that *nothing* would happen to the head as this skull material/matter explodes out the top/right of the head? No recoil? Nothing? We can argue how much and that Alvarez's explanation is an overreach.

The physicist Ken Rahn explains the theory this way. As the bullet passes through the brain

 "The pressure builds up isotropically (equally in all directions) inside the head, because the pressure is no longer linked directly to the movement of the bullet. Thus it is not usually possible to predict which part of the head will give way first, other than to note that the weakest parts of the head will generally be the front (the vicinity of the eye sockets) and wherever the bullet left the head. The latter effect is caused by the bullet blasting a larger hole where it leaves than where it enters (because by the time it leaves, the bullet is tumbling and so presents a greater cross-section to the point of exit than to the point of entrance). In the special case where the head is hit from behind, both the exit hole and the weakest parts of the skull will lie at the front of the skull, and it can be reasonably expected that the bulk of the fragments will be expelled frontward.

And most important: "This second phase of the collision imparts a second movement to the head. If fragments are ejected in a preferential direction, they will cause the head to recoil in the opposite direction."

Why won't this recoil happen?

The rest here: https://kenrahn.com/JFK/Scientific_topics/Physics_of_head_shot/4-Wound_ballistics.html

And here:
https://kenrahn.com/JFK/Issues_and_evidence/Frontal_shot(s)/Tobias_frontal_shots/Jet_effect.html

"Is the conspiracy argument or response that *nothing* would happen to the head as this skull material/matter explodes out the top/right of the head? No recoil? Nothing? We can argue how much and that Alvarez's explanation is an overreach."

Any material/matter that has left the head can't cause any kind of recoil.
It is no longer in contact with the head so cannot affect it in any way.
In the example of the balloon I've given, the movement is caused by the continuous flow of air through a relatively small opening.
The balloon is actually a system of air contained within a rubber skin being pressurised by the air outside the balloon. The rubber skin and the air it contains are both elements of the 'balloon system'.
This continuous flow creates a 'column' of air that meets resistance with the air outside the balloon. This force of resistance travels backwards, through the column of air and into the balloon system, causing it to fly in the same direction as the 'backwards' resistance travelling up the column of air into the balloon system (the opposite direction of the flow of air out of the opening)
The second there is a break in the column of air the 'backwards' resistance cannot reach the balloon system and therefore cannot propel it (or cause recoil).

For the Jet Effect to work on JFK's head there would have to be a continuous flow of material/matter exiting the head 'system' through a relatively small opening.
The gigantic wound to the top of JFK's head prevents such a continuous flow. There is no column of material/matter through which the 'backwards' resistance can travel and act on the head system. No Jet Effect.

When a bullet passes through human tissue it often causes an effect called "cavitation" which creates pressure waves within the tissue. I believe this pressure wave was the main factor for the explosive nature of JFK's head wound and in the split second the material/matter was being ejected, and was still connected to the head system, there would have been a negligible amount of recoil.
In z313 we can see what appears to be two "jets" leaving JFK's head, one is very distinct and the other is harder to see. I would argue that these are NOT continuous columns of material/matter and, as such, cannot provide any kind of recoil effect:



In the image below I have highlighted the two "jets" with red lines.
The yellow line is a line drawn through the top of JFK's head to show it's orientation (I've eyeballed it but it's pretty close):



Even if it were the case that these "jets" were continuous, and thus connected to the head system, the main "jet" would be driving JFK's head down and forward, not back and to the left.

[John Iacoletti]

It's amazing what kind of garbage people will invent and rationalize (even Nobel prize winners) in order to maintain their fiction.