Forward And Back And To The Left

[Dan O'meara]

I went to see JFK when it came out but, not knowing much about the subject, was quickly lost in the complexity of the plot but one thing stuck with me - "Back and to the left...back and to the left"
It was all I needed to know that there was a conspiracy to kill JFK. There was no sane way to describe the movement other than a shot from the front which meant at least one more gunman which meant conspiracy. End of story.
When I joined this forum a few months ago this was the only thing I knew for certain - the movement of JFK after the headshot proved there was a shot from the front. This was my core belief.
I've recently been thinking about the enormity of the impact this single detail has made on JFK assassination research - anyone who thinks there was a shot from the front, anyone who thinks the Z-film was altered, anyone who thinks the autopsy photos were altered to disguise a shot from the front and plenty more I'm sure. I would be surprised if there was one conspiratorially minded person on this forum whose beliefs, one way or the other, didn't come back to "back and to the left"

What if it's all wrong?
What if the "back and to the left" movement was caused by a shot from behind?
What would the repercussions of this be?

In a recent thread I created, "Unseeing the Headshot", I describe how a simple observation of something I hadn't noticed before led to my core belief being overturned. I now ask the question - in the clip below, what is the very first movement of JFK's head at the moment of impact?



If, like me, you see it is a forward movement, you must ask how a shot from the front can cause this movement.
If you accept that it can only be caused by a shot from behind the question becomes - how can a shot from behind cause the "back and to the left" movement?

[Jack Trojan]

You seem to think that a shot from behind negates any shots from the front. You should be asking yourself how did the shot from behind cause "back and to the left"? Actually, JFK's body movements were a complex response to several forces applied from various directions.

You are seeing the "jet effect" in action, moving JFK's head away from "blowouts". But what is jetting from the blowouts? Plasma from an exploding bullet, of course. Did you think the glowing orb at JFK's temple was sun on brain matter? Even if it was, something blew out his right temple and it wasn't from a FMJ bullet shot from behind.



That's where the frangible bullet entered, then blew out a skull flap at his right temple, jetting his head to the left. IMO, it also jetted his head slightly forward from the blowout in the back, which was quickly swamped by the forces from the frontal shot moving his head back. The frangible bullet's jet effect gave us JFK's complex head motion and your slight forward motion. At any rate, it does not prove that there wasn't a small caliber shot from behind in the mix, just that it wouldn't negate any other near simultaneous shots from the front. So what was your point again?

[Dan O'meara]

You seem to think that a shot from behind negates any shots from the front.

That's not been said anywhere but I get the impression you're the kind of guy who likes to decide what other people are thinking.

You should be asking yourself how did the shot from behind cause "back and to the left"?

Erm...that's the exact question I ask at the end of my post. 

Actually, JFK's body movements were a complex response to several forces applied from various directions.

I've got a feeling you're just about to make up something crazy because you don't actually have a clue what's happening.

You are seeing the "jet effect" in action, moving JFK's head away from "blowouts". But what is jetting from the blowouts? Plasma from an exploding bullet, of course. Did you think the glowing orb at JFK's temple was sun on brain matter? Even if it was, something blew out his right temple and it wasn't from a FMJ bullet shot from behind.

There are many examples of incredibly poor scholarship related to the JFK assassination case but the worst, by far, is Luis Alvarez's utterly discredited Jet Effect. It's an embarrassment to the word "scholarship". And here, if I'm reading you correctly, we don't have one, but multiple jet effects from multiple "blowouts". Let's see where this leads.
You make a point about FMJ bullets. I know zero about guns and ammunition but, as far as I can see, both the bullets that cause the wounds to JFK and JBC fragment. IMO CE399 has got absolutely nothing to do with the actual assassination. I believe there is evidence the bullet that strikes JFK's head fragments and causes the damage to the windscreen and metal trim of the limo.

I believe you put some kind of image here but it didn't show up in my post

That's where the frangible bullet entered, then blew out a skull flap at his right temple, jetting his head to the left. IMO, it also jetted his head slightly forward from the blowout in the back, which was quickly swamped by the forces from the frontal shot moving his head back. The frangible bullet's jet effect gave us JFK's complex head motion and your slight forward motion.

So let me get this right.
You seem to acknowledge that JFK's first head movement is forward and this is the main thrust of my post - how can a shot from the front cause this forward motion? And your explanation appears to be that the shot from the front cause a blowout at the back of JFK's head and the jet effect from this blowout at the back caused the initial movement forward. Please correct me if I'm wrong on this.
So the bullet penetrates JFK's skull from the front first, then causes the blowout at the back second.
So the bullet from the front doesn't cause JFK's head to move backwards but the jet effect from the blowout at the back causes his head to move forward? That's your explanation?

At any rate, it does not prove that there wasn't a small caliber shot from behind in the mix, just that it wouldn't negate any other near simultaneous shots from the front.

Small caliber?

So what was your point again?

You've exemplified the point I'm making beautifully.
By not understanding what's actually happening with JFK's headshot you've had to make up some completely nonsensical scenario which defies physics, logic and common sense.
The bullet from the front doesn't cause JFK's head to move but the jet effect from the back does!!
Have a think about that. Have a think how unlikely that proposal is.
The jet effect? You must be joking.
Multiple jet effects?? Really?
Where is the blowout at the back shown in the Z-film?
It's not.
Oh, that's right, "they" altered the Z-film to hide the blowout at the back but left in the "back and to the left" motion. The motion that appears, above anything to confirm there is a shot from the front.
Why would "they" alter the blowout but leave in the "back and to the left" motion?
Have a think about that.

[Walt Cakebread]

That's not been said anywhere but I get the impression you're the kind of guy who likes to decide what other people are thinking.

Erm...that's the exact question I ask at the end of my post. 

I've got a feeling you're just about to make up something crazy because you don't actually have a clue what's happening.

There are many examples of incredibly poor scholarship related to the JFK assassination case but the worst, by far, is Luis Alvarez's utterly discredited Jet Effect. It's an embarrassment to the word "scholarship". And here, if I'm reading you correctly, we don't have one, but multiple jet effects from multiple "blowouts". Let's see where this leads.
You make a point about FMJ bullets. I know zero about guns and ammunition but, as far as I can see, both the bullets that cause the wounds to JFK and JBC fragment. IMO CE399 has got absolutely nothing to do with the actual assassination. I believe there is evidence the bullet that strikes JFK's head fragments and causes the damage to the windscreen and metal trim of the limo.

I believe you put some kind of image here but it didn't show up in my post



So let me get this right.
You seem to acknowledge that JFK's first head movement is forward and this is the main thrust of my post - how can a shot from the front cause this forward motion? And your explanation appears to be that the shot from the front cause a blowout at the back of JFK's head and the jet effect from this blowout at the back caused the initial movement forward. Please correct me if I'm wrong on this.
So the bullet penetrates JFK's skull from the front first, then causes the blowout at the back second.
So the bullet from the front doesn't cause JFK's head to move backwards but the jet effect from the blowout at the back causes his head to move forward? That's your explanation?

Small caliber?

You've exemplified the point I'm making beautifully.
By not understanding what's actually happening with JFK's headshot you've had to make up some completely nonsensical scenario which defies physics, logic and common sense.
The bullet from the front doesn't cause JFK's head to move but the jet effect from the back does!!
Have a think about that. Have a think how unlikely that proposal is.
The jet effect? You must be joking.
Multiple jet effects?? Really?
Where is the blowout at the back shown in the Z-film?
It's not.
Oh, that's right, "they" altered the Z-film to hide the blowout at the back but left in the "back and to the left" motion. The motion that appears, above anything to confirm there is a shot from the front.
Why would "they" alter the blowout but leave in the "back and to the left" motion?
Have a think about that.

I know zero about guns and ammunition but, as far as I can see, both the bullets that cause the wounds to JFK and JBC fragment. IMO CE399 has got absolutely nothing to do with the actual assassination.

I believe there is evidence the bullet that strikes JFK's head fragments and causes the damage to the windscreen and metal trim of the limo.

Hi Dan, It's a shame that you know nothing about guns and ammo......  But I believe that you are a bright guy, who understands physics. 

So I'm sure that you can understand that a missile like an arrow has much greater penetrating ability than a bowling ball traveling at the same speed.  The Bowling ball will impact a target ( cardboard box for example) with far greater energy than the arrow, but the  arrow will easily pass through the box whereas the bowling ball will not.

The point being.....The dent on the chrome molding above the rear view mirror was created by a slow moving projectile while the damage to JFK's head appears to have been caused by a high velocity projectile.   IOW ...   TWO different weapons .... And I believe the high velocity weapon was fired from in front of the Lincoln. ( one of the high velocity bullets hit JFK in the throat)

But I want to stress the point that the dent in the chrome molding appears to have been created by a slow moving heavy ( low velocity, subsonic) bullet. It definitely was NOT created by a light weight piece of a 6.5mm bullet.  The dent in he chrome appears to have been created by a 45 caliber bullet....( the diameter is the correct size)    It's no secret that the 45 caliber cartridge is not a high velocity cartridge, and the big heavy projectile ( .451" dia.  - 185 grain)  leaves the muzzle of the 45 pistol at near subsonic velocity so it is easily silenced with a muzzle muffler ( Silencer) Therefore the discharge of a weapon equipped with a silencer would be inaudible.  The big slow moving .45 caliber bullet has poor penetrating ability ( like the bowling ball) but it packs one hell of a wallop!....

Bottom line....The dent in the chrome molding was created by a silencer equipped .45 caliber weapon, fired from behind.

 

[Dan O'meara]

I know zero about guns and ammunition but, as far as I can see, both the bullets that cause the wounds to JFK and JBC fragment. IMO CE399 has got absolutely nothing to do with the actual assassination.

I believe there is evidence the bullet that strikes JFK's head fragments and causes the damage to the windscreen and metal trim of the limo.

Hi Dan, It's a shame that you know nothing about guns and ammo......  But I believe that you are a bright guy, who understands physics. 

So I'm sure that you can understand that a missile like an arrow has much greater penetrating ability than a bowling ball traveling at the same speed.  The Bowling ball will impact a target ( cardboard box for example) with far greater energy than the arrow, but the  arrow will easily pass through the box whereas the bowling ball will not.

The point being.....The dent on the chrome molding above the rear view mirror was created by a slow moving projectile while the damage to JFK's head appears to have been caused by a high velocity projectile.   IOW ...   TWO different weapons .... And I believe the high velocity weapon was fired from in front of the Lincoln. ( one of the high velocity bullets hit JFK in the throat)

But I want to stress the point that the dent in the chrome molding appears to have been created by a slow moving heavy ( low velocity, subsonic) bullet. It definitely was NOT created by a light weight piece of a 6.5mm bullet.  The dent in he chrome appears to have been created by a 45 caliber bullet....( the diameter is the correct size)    It's no secret that the 45 caliber cartridge is not a high velocity cartridge, and the big heavy projectile ( .451" dia.  - 185 grain)  leaves the muzzle of the 45 pistol at near subsonic velocity so it is easily silenced with a muzzle muffler ( Silencer) Therefore the discharge of a weapon equipped with a silencer would be inaudible.  The big slow moving .45 caliber bullet has poor penetrating ability ( like the bowling ball) but it packs one hell of a wallop!....

Bottom line....The dent in the chrome molding was created by a silencer equipped .45 caliber weapon, fired from behind.

Do you acknowledge the initial forward movement of JFK's head in the clip I posted?
If you do, what do you imagine caused it?
As an aside, what do you think caused the damage to the windscreen?

[Walt Cakebread]

Do you acknowledge the initial forward movement of JFK's head in the clip I posted?
If you do, what do you imagine caused it?
As an aside, what do you think caused the damage to the windscreen?

Do you acknowledge the initial forward movement of JFK's head in the clip I posted?

Honest Injun, Dan....  I refuse to STUDY or scrutinize the Z film.....   I'm simply not qualified to make sound judgement about the movements of JFK's head.  And What's more....I'm pretty sure, that the extant Z film is a fake.... at least the critical portion of the film is fakery.
If you do, what do you imagine caused it?

As an aside, what do you think caused the damage to the windscreen?

Windscreen??   Are you referring to the glass windshield?   Please elaborate, and be specific. 

[Dan O'meara]

Do you acknowledge the initial forward movement of JFK's head in the clip I posted?

Honest Injun, Dan....  I refuse to STUDY or scrutinize the Z film.....   I'm simply not qualified to make sound judgement about the movements of JFK's head.  And What's more....I'm pretty sure, that the extant Z film is a fake.... at least the critical portion of the film is fakery.
If you do, what do you imagine caused it?

You are a JFK researcher who refuses to study the Z-film
You refuse to study it yet you're pretty sure it's fake
Let's just leave that there then.

Windscreen??   Are you referring to the glass windshield?   Please elaborate, and be specific.

Yes, I was referring to the windshield of the limo but it doesn't matter.

[Jack Trojan]

That's not been said anywhere but I get the impression you're the kind of guy who likes to decide what other people are thinking.

Erm...that's the exact question I ask at the end of my post. 

I've got a feeling you're just about to make up something crazy because you don't actually have a clue what's happening.

There are many examples of incredibly poor scholarship related to the JFK assassination case but the worst, by far, is Luis Alvarez's utterly discredited Jet Effect. It's an embarrassment to the word "scholarship". And here, if I'm reading you correctly, we don't have one, but multiple jet effects from multiple "blowouts". Let's see where this leads.
You make a point about FMJ bullets. I know zero about guns and ammunition but, as far as I can see, both the bullets that cause the wounds to JFK and JBC fragment. IMO CE399 has got absolutely nothing to do with the actual assassination. I believe there is evidence the bullet that strikes JFK's head fragments and causes the damage to the windscreen and metal trim of the limo.

I believe you put some kind of image here but it didn't show up in my post



So let me get this right.
You seem to acknowledge that JFK's first head movement is forward and this is the main thrust of my post - how can a shot from the front cause this forward motion? And your explanation appears to be that the shot from the front cause a blowout at the back of JFK's head and the jet effect from this blowout at the back caused the initial movement forward. Please correct me if I'm wrong on this.
So the bullet penetrates JFK's skull from the front first, then causes the blowout at the back second.
So the bullet from the front doesn't cause JFK's head to move backwards but the jet effect from the blowout at the back causes his head to move forward? That's your explanation?

Small caliber?

You've exemplified the point I'm making beautifully.
By not understanding what's actually happening with JFK's headshot you've had to make up some completely nonsensical scenario which defies physics, logic and common sense.
The bullet from the front doesn't cause JFK's head to move but the jet effect from the back does!!
Have a think about that. Have a think how unlikely that proposal is.
The jet effect? You must be joking.
Multiple jet effects?? Really?
Where is the blowout at the back shown in the Z-film?
It's not.
Oh, that's right, "they" altered the Z-film to hide the blowout at the back but left in the "back and to the left" motion. The motion that appears, above anything to confirm there is a shot from the front.
Why would "they" alter the blowout but leave in the "back and to the left" motion?
Have a think about that.

LOL. For someone that admits they don't know anything about ballistics, forensics and physics you sure seem to know a lot about how wrong and crazy I am. You need to learn how to recognize nonsense before you can dismiss it. Otherwise, your critique is of very limited value. But go ahead and print it out and post it on your fridge. That one's a keeper.