Newsweek: A new study has debunked a long-held JFK assassination conspiracy theo

[Jack Trojan]

A new study has debunked a long-held JFK assassination conspiracy theory
By Aristos Georgiou On 4/26/18 at 10:33 AM

...

One long-held and famous conspiracy theory holds that JFK was shot by a second gunman from a grassy knoll. While the flaws of this theory have already been pointed out by some, a new study published in the journal Heliyon may finally put the idea to rest.

Supporters of this theory tend to use the infamous Zapruder film?which captured the killing?to bolster their claim, pointing to the fact that Kennedy's head moves in a backward and leftward motion after the bullet's impact, apparent proof that he was shot from the front as well as from behind (by Oswald).

But new analysis of the Zapruder footage conducted by Nicholas Nalli from I.M. Systems Group shows that JFK?s reactions after being shot are physically consistent with the results of the official autopsy findings: that he was killed by a gunshot to the back of the head, fired from a high-energy Carcano rifle (the one used by Oswald) located in the vicinity of the Texas School Book Depository.

Full article: http://www.newsweek.com/jfk-assassination-conspiracy-theory-debunked-new-gunshot-study-902292

So, I guess Oswald must have done it after all. This article is a waste of time. We have all examined the Z film frame by frame from Z313 on and no one can claim anything definitive based on JFK's motion after the head shot(s). No peer review would conclude this was a slam dunk study debunking a 2nd gunman. There were so many other factors not considered in this study that the author was either incompetent or worse.

Multiple shots at the Turkey-shoot point included a frangible bullet which made JFK's head do exactly what it did based on the blow-out at the back and right side of his head. Hell, JFK's head exploded from a FMJ bullet! The pristine Magic Bullet is dubious.

Here's an overhead of how the head-shot bullet must have entered the back of JFK's head and out his right temple if it came from the TSBD. Also shown is frame Z312 where the bullet is about to explode in JFK's head. Note how Zapruder would not have filmed any of JFK's profile if the bullet exited his right temple. Yet he did?



So how does this article debunk any of this?

[Matt Grantham]

 Quite the article First it stats he based his conclusions with the autopsy Then later it is about physics. Physics equations are not related to autopsy reports Where is the physics?

[Joe Elliott]

 blew the back of his head off.

Anybody who believes this violation of the laws of physics, needs the help of a middle school student or ..... a psychiatrist

Like Nobel Prize winner in Physics, Dr. Luis Walter Alvarez? I assume you would include him in the group that needed the help of a middle school student?



I believe that over 90% of the people who assert that a shot from the back causing the movement of JFK?s head backwards would ?Violate the Laws of Physics?, never took a high school physics course.



The Newsweek article does not go into too many details, it seems Nicholas Nalli goes with the ?Jet Effect? Theory. While this theory was created by Dr. Alvarez, and does not, no matter what anyone tells you ?Violates the Laws of Physics?. However, it is not the best explanation of what happens because:

** It does not explain why JFK?s head did not start moving backwards within 5 to 10 milliseconds of the shot. Instead the backwards movement does not start until about 55 milliseconds after the shot.

** It does not explain why the momentum backwards builds up slowly. At first the head moves slowly backwards, so slowly that it does not reach the z312 position until between z315 and z316.


The best explanation is that the ?Jet Effect? had little or no effect. That the backwards movement was caused by a ?Neurological Spasm?.

As far as I know, no medical doctor, who has seen the 1947 army pictures of the goat being shot in the head, has argued against the ?Neurological Spasm? Theory. Or if one has done so, explain the movement of the goat in the film.

[Matt Grantham]

** It does not explain why JFK?s head did not start moving backwards within 5 to 10 milliseconds of the shot. Instead the backwards movement does not start until about 55 milliseconds after the shot.

** It does not explain why the momentum backwards builds up slowly. At first the head moves slowly backwards, so slowly that it does not reach the z312 position until between z315 and z316.


The best explanation is that the ?Jet Effect? had little or no effect. That the backwards movement was caused by a ?Neurological Spasm?.

As far as I know, no medical doctor, who has seen the 1947 army pictures of the goat being shot in the head, has argued against the ?Neurological Spasm? Theory. Or if one has done so, explain the movement of the goat in the film.

 So you are not actually arguing physics if you are arguing for a spasm

[Joe Elliott]

 So you are not actually arguing physics if you are arguing for a spasm

Correct. I am arguing biology, not physics.

That is not to say that physics is an impossible explanation for something like this. There are too many films of melons and even skulls being propelled backwards, toward the rifle. But none of them show this backwards motion starting 55 milliseconds after the bullet struck. None of them show the melon starting to move backwards slowly and then gradually build up speed over the next 200 milliseconds.

So, despite what many CTers say, who never took a high school course in physics, an object being propelled back toward the rifle would not be a ?Violation of the Laws of Physics?. But in the JFK case, it is not the true explanation.

[Matt Grantham]

Correct. I am arguing biology, not physics.

That is not to say that physics is an impossible explanation for something like this. There are too many films of melons and even skulls being propelled backwards, toward the rifle. But none of them show this backwards motion starting 55 milliseconds after the bullet struck. None of them show the melon starting to move backwards slowly and then gradually build up speed over the next 200 milliseconds.

So, despite what many CTers say, who never took a high school course in physics, an object being propelled back toward the rifle would not be a ?Violation of the Laws of Physics?. But in the JFK case, it is not the true explanation.

 In case you become interested in physics here is something from Tony Szamboti in regard to the fanciful jet effect

Dr. Alvarez claims that President Kennedy?s head recoiled the way a rocket recoils when its
jet exhaust is ejected. However, he does not explain any mechanism for putting an opposite
force on the head when the jet was expelled forward. He simply makes the case for the
potential of the jet taking out more momentum than that brought in by the bullet. In order for
a jet effect to have occurred a pressure would have to be built up inside the head, acting at
least rearward as well as forward, which was then relieved on the forward side allowing the
rearward pressure to dominate and create an unbalanced force in that direction. This is usually
done with either a combustion process or having a pressure on tap in a sealed volume. The
thrust in a jet or rocket engine can be computed based on the change in momentum of the
exhaust gases with respect to time. However, this change in momentum is directly related to
the forward acting pressure opposite that of the exhaust gases, since their initial pressure
values are the same but one is allowed to escape.

 As far as melons an goats post something and I will gladly reply Magicians with melons are laughingly easy to dismiss from what I have seen so far

[Joe Elliott]

 In case you become interested in physics here is something from Tony Szamboti in regard to the fanciful jet effect

Dr. Alvarez claims that President Kennedy?s head recoiled the way a rocket recoils when its
jet exhaust is ejected. However, he does not explain any mechanism for putting an opposite
force on the head when the jet was expelled forward. He simply makes the case for the
potential of the jet taking out more momentum than that brought in by the bullet. In order for
a jet effect to have occurred a pressure would have to be built up inside the head, acting at
least rearward as well as forward, which was then relieved on the forward side allowing the
rearward pressure to dominate and create an unbalanced force in that direction. This is usually
done with either a combustion process or having a pressure on tap in a sealed volume. The
thrust in a jet or rocket engine can be computed based on the change in momentum of the
exhaust gases with respect to time. However, this change in momentum is directly related to
the forward acting pressure opposite that of the exhaust gases, since their initial pressure
values are the same but one is allowed to escape.

It appears to me you have never taken a high school course in Physics. Or if you did, you have forgotten the basics. Is this correct?


Don?t you think it?s possible that the problem is not with Dr. Alvarez?s understanding of Physics but your understanding of Physics?



It?s not a question of ?building up enough pressure?. It?s a question of the amount of momentum carried by the debris we see being propelled forward from JFK?s head.

If this debris contains more momentum than the amount of momentum deposited by the bullet, then JFK?s head must be propelled backwards, back toward the rifle, to allow momentum to be conserved. If it does not, then the head is not propelled backwards.

Clearly melons, at least in some cases, sends enough melon juice downrange, to cause the melon to be propelled backwards, to allow momentum to be conserved. We have proof of this on film. You can?t dismiss this with clever phrases like ?This would violate the laws of physics?. Particularly when you do not understand the basic laws of physics.

This does not appear to happen with JFK?s head, because there is a delay in the movement backwards of his head. The debris has not propelled forward with enough momentum for this to happen.

[Matt Grantham]

It appears to me you have never taken a high school course in Physics. Or if you did, you have forgotten the basics. Is this correct?


Don?t you think it?s possible that the problem is not with Dr. Alvarez?s understanding of Physics but your understanding of Physics?



It?s not a question of ?building up enough pressure?. It?s a question of the amount of momentum carried by the debris we see being propelled forward from JFK?s head.

If this debris contains more momentum than the amount of momentum deposited by the bullet, then JFK?s head must be propelled backwards, back toward the rifle, to allow momentum to be conserved. If it does not, then the head is not propelled backwards.

Clearly melons, at least in some cases, sends enough melon juice downrange, to cause the melon to be propelled backwards, to allow momentum to be conserved. We have proof of this on film. You can?t dismiss this with clever phrases like ?This would violate the laws of physics?. Particularly when you do not understand the basic laws of physics.

This does not appear to happen with JFK?s head, because there is a delay in the movement backwards of his head. The debris has not propelled forward with enough momentum for this to happen.

 Try to be accurate please I cited Szamboti refuting Alvarez so lets not couch in terms that I know better than Alvarez

 I is kind of funny that you in a sense ave hit the nail on the head with your claim that the material being blown out of Kennedy's head is greater to that of the bullet since that is what Szamboti is basically saying Certainly you understand that the collision of projectile striking an object cannot release more energy than the force imparted from the  original impact unless an additional energetic reaction occurs within JFKs head So that seems to be to be the bottom line JFK had some kind of explosive material in his head

 As for the melon heads On one the melon rolls up to the lip of the tray hits the beveled upward edge of the tray and then roils back in the direction of the shot because of the lip Another the melon is balanced on the table and when the gunshot removes more material from the far side of the melon from the direction of the shot than the remaining portion nearer the incoming shot and its fulcrum is changed and it rolls back in the direction of the shot

 Next