Here is the 112 page report from the National Academy of Science debunking the Dictabelt.


https://nap.nationalacademies.org/read/10264/chapter/1 EDIT: Updated link


It looks like that Michael T. Griffith's work is trying to prove that the Mormon Church is God's one true church.

https://www.amazon.com/stores/Michael-T.-Griffith/author/B001KJ1LWG?ccs_id=1f1aa332-7d7d-405e-a985-3fe57a97ccf5#



Michael T. Griffith joined the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in 1977 at the age of nineteen. From 1979 to 1981 he served a mission in the Texas Dallas Mission. Brother Griffith has attended Ricks College, Brigham Young University, Austin Peay State University, Mount Wachusett Community College, and Haifa University in Israel, where his studies centered around ancient history and foreign languages. While at Brigham Young University, Brother Griffith worked as an assistant to Dr. Ross T. Christensen of the Society for Early Historic Archaeology. In 1982 that organization published his paper on the famous Lehi tree-of-life stone, The Lehi Tree-of-Life Story in the Book of Mormon Still Supported by Izapa Stela 5. In 1983 Brother Griffith graduated in Modern Standard Arabic and Egyptian Dialect from the Defense Language Institute in Monterey, California. He graduated with honors in Hebrew from the same institution in 1987. In 1989 he completed an advanced summer program in Hebrew at Haifa University. Brother Griffith is the author of four books: A Ready Reply; Signs of the True Church of Christ; Refuting the Critics: Evidences of the Book of Mormon's Authenticity; and One Lord, One Faith: Writings of the Early Christian Fathers as Evidences of the Restoration. Brother Griffith has held several Church callings, including Ward Clerk, Sunday School and Primary teacher, Elder quorum Presidency First Counselor, and Ward newsletter editor. He is married to the former Rosemarie Lynn Pratt, and they are the parents of five children.


I'm not putting a lot of faith in his writings...

Soup, is the JFK assassination your only obsession or do you have another subject that you are passionate about?

Guitarsoup said:

---

Here is the 112 page report from the National Academy of Science debunking the Dictabelt.

https://nap.nationalacademies.org/read/10264/chapter/

---

It wouldn't load, but if it's the 2013 study I've read that one. What are your thoughts on Dallas PD officer Joe M. Smith encountering a man behind the grassy knoll in the parking lot right after the assassination that showed him a secret service badge, while there were no SS agents stationed anywhere on the ground? Was he just mistaken?

M Griffith has written some pretty interesting research articles on the assassination for various publications…and I read he was once in military intelligence…but yeah I can't agree with his Mormon book…lol

Agristotle said:

---

Soup, is the JFK assassination your only obsession or do you have another subject that you are passionate about?

---

I like following true crime cases that happen. Currently following the Karen Read case in Boston and the Idaho student/Kohberger case. I am in grad school for something completely unrelated to any of this, but certainly helps with my research and writing. My wife and daughter are heavily involved in music, so I've learned a good bit about that, but I don't pursue it independently like I do other interests.

There was a time I really loved Aggie sports.

Sometimes I play around with photography, too.

Bighunter43 said:

---

Guitarsoup said:

---

Here is the 112 page report from the National Academy of Science debunking the Dictabelt.

https://nap.nationalacademies.org/read/10264/chapter/

---

It wouldn't load, but if it's the 2013 study I've read that one. What are your thoughts on Dallas PD officer Joe M. Smith encountering a man behind the gassy knoll in the parking lot right after the assassination that showed him a secret service badge, while there were no SS agents stationed anywhere on the ground?

---

Sorry, Hunter. I updated it and checked it works, now.


There were several cops in that area.

Deputy Constable Weitzman, Dallas PD D.V. Harkness, and Smith.

Smith's testimony:





He starts going into it on page 535.

https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh7/pdf/WH7_JoeSmith.pdf

Deputy Weitzman (who was in plainclothes) from his interview with the House Select Committee on Assassinations on April 25th, 1978:

But in a report on his 1978 interview of Weitzman, HSCA investigator Leodis C. Matthews writes that Weitzman said "he did not know if the man was a law enforcement agent or not. I reminded him of his testimony before the Warren Commission identifying the person as a Secret Service agent. He recalled that he just didn't know who it was."


Then there was DPS Officer Harkness. He was interviewed on Feb 7th, 78 for the HSCA:

But again, in a report on his 1978 interview with Harkness, HSCA investigator Harold Rose writes that "Harkness told me that there was quite a bit of confusion and he would have to say that he may have assumed that the men were Secret Service. They could have been from some other agency."

----------------------

By the reports of all three people, they didn't really check to see who was who. They were focused on looking for the active shooter/threat.

I think there was just mass confusion and they didn't really look closely and likely assumed people were Secret Service. I don't know really what they saw, and from the statements of all three of them, they didn't really know what they saw, either.

What I do think is a takeaway is they were all over the fence and into that parking lot within moments of the shooting and they didn't see anyone that had a gun or was a threat.

Also, if you go there, you can see it was not this great hidden sniper's nest. Behind the fence was a parking lot with a big security booth in the middle of it that could see the entirety of the back of the fence at the top of the grassy knoll.

2015:


Back in 63:



So that is my answer: I don't know. I think none of them really knew exactly who those guys were, but assumed they weren't a threat, and obviously did not see a gun/rifle on them.

Guitarsoup said:

---

japantiger said:

---

Here's where I am on the shooter:

Oswald had a 4x18 scope on the 6.5mm Carcano Model 91/38 rifle; it was an Ordnance Optics scope, 3/4-inch tube, an 18mm objective lens, a simple crosshair reticle, and basic windage/elevation adjustments. It was a low-quality, imported scope, side-mounted on the rifle, with poor optical clarity and a misalignment that required shims to correct during FBI testing. Its field of view was approx 20 feet at 100 yards.

A few points in no particular order:

• That's a pretty narrow field of view. Most "more modern" scopes with 30+mm objective lenses will provide 3x+ field of view at 4x magnification.
• The scope was side mounted and "shimmed" in place
• When tested by the FBI; the rifle was not zeroed
• Both Zeroing and aiming a side mounted rifle presents challenges
• The iron sights were still on the rifle
• The best data I can find on the timing from 1st shot to final shot was "likely 5.6 seconds (accepted by the Warren Commission)"; but could be as long as 8 seconds based on some views.

My bonafides: I shoot a fair amount. I qual'd as Marine Expert as a young man....no special marksmanship training beyond that from the military perspective. I never used a scope until about 10 years ago. So everything I shot up until then was with iron sights. In the last 10 years I have spent a lot of time shooting with scopes. I shoot a lot to be proficient for the type of hunting I do. I don't really view myself as a great shooter; though I have made my share of great shots. I have trained with elite shooters...they are spooky good. I am confident in saying I am well above average and well trained; but I would not say "elite".

I practice on ranges with varying scopes and some specific exercises; shooting; cycling the bolt, re-acquiring another target; and placing an accurate round on that target; with someone with a stop watch on me. The goal; shoot and reacquire and accurately shoot in less than 10 seconds. The "moved target" being anywhere from 25yds to 500 yds away. This simulates shooting an animal; not knocking it down with the first shot; and having to shoot the wounded animal as it has moved away. So, basically, what the lone gunman shooter would have had to do.

I score very well on getting an accurate round on the followup shot within 10 seconds; by accurate I mean on anything from a 6" to 12" plate depending on distance to target. ..usually 8". 80% of the time...some days (especially with little wind) better. But consistently 8 of 10 within 10 seconds across a wide range of distances. Many times in under 5 seconds...but often clicking the round when the counter says 9....mostly now I use a Z8i 2.3-18x56 scope...so great field of view on picking up the second target (about 20m field of view). I don't have to worry about my scope retaining zero even with heavy abuse. I don't have to do anything special holding a different distance or for wind; my BRH reticle makes that doable.

---

Really great post. Thank you for your service and sharing your expertise with us. I do have a few questions for you.

Quote:

---

As a Marine, Oswald struggled to maintain "Marksman" status...his skills degraded during his tenure according to records; he qualified with the M1 Garand. He scored 191 at the range in 1959; anything below 190 is failing.

---

That does leave out that he did qualify previously as a Sharpshooter at 212. Not an expert like yourself, certainly. His shooting in 1959 was after he had been convicted at two separate court-martials, and he was ready to get out of the Marines and was already planning on defecting. He spent 20 days then 48 days serving hard labor in the brig for shooting himself then months after that, assaulting a NCO. As he was already planning to separate (if the USMC didnt do it for him first, who knows how much effort he put in. Maybe that was the best he could do, maybe he did the best he could and he barely made it. There is no way to know. But we do know that he was able to qualify as a sharpshooter (middle level between Marksman and Expert) at one point in his career.

Quote:

---

Friends/acquaintances told the Commission he was a poor shot

---

Here is the actual testimony from Major Anderson, a 26 year Marine veteran of WWII and Korea.



You can read all of the testimony of Major Eugene Anderson and MSgt James Zahm here: https://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh11/pdf/WH11_Anderson.pdf

Quote:

---

...now, the magic shot was from about 88yds...so a far cry from trying to qualify from 200, 300 and out to 500 yds. But, he was nothing special in the Marines....below average. But, I feel as far as against the general population of shooters, though, he was probably at least an average shot.

---

I generally agree. Like you said, he had qualified on significantly longer shots than what he had at Dealy Plaza's 180-265 ft shots.

Quote:

---

Given all of the above; I find it unlikely Oswald fired 3 shots; accurately; cycled the bolt twice (2.3 seconds required each time according to the FBI), reacquired a moving target twice, looking thru a "tunnel" (the 18mm FOV scope) under pressure.

---

Here is a link to the House Select Committee on Assassinations's report, where they cite that FBI data.
https://www.archives.gov/research/jfk/select-committee-report/part-4.html

The FBI findings were [italics to not confuse your quotes from their quotes]: "First, there was a test conducted by the FBI in 1964, using Oswald's rifle, which was a bolt-action rifle manufactured by Mannlicher-Carcano. The results showed that this rifle could not be aimed and fired using the telescopic sights in less than 2.25-2.3 seconds.2 Second, two committee staff members conducted a preliminary test in September, using a Mannlicher-Carcano similar to Oswald's. The results of this test showed that, using the open iron sights, the fastest that the rifle could be fired was somewhere between 1.65 and 1.75 seconds.3"

Do you feel their estimate of a half second more to acquire the target in the scope is about right?

I've seen some examples of the set up, and everything you said about the scope and the field of view are dead on. It also wasn't like it was a fancy Schmidt & Bender scope on there.

Quote:

---

I believe it much more likely he didn't use the scope at all; and fired using the iron sights. He was used to iron sights; had trained with them. It would be much easier to reacquire a target using iron sights:

Scope Issues Outweigh Benefits: The scope's misalignment, poor quality, and side-mount configuration likely made it a liability rather than an asset. At 60-88 yards, 4x magnification offers minimal advantage over iron sights, and the narrow FOV and awkward positioning could have slowed Oswald downcrucial in a short shooting window. FBI tests showed the rifle was accurate with iron sights at similar ranges.

Oswald's Comfort Zone: His Marine training with iron sights at longer ranges (200-500 yards) suggests he could handle 88 yards effortlessly with the Carcano's sights. His lack of scope experience reinforces this preference, as adapting to a new system under pressure seems unlikely for a marginal shooter (191 in 1959).

Practicality in the Moment: For three shots, including a miss and two hits, iron sights line up with the need for speed and simplicity. The headshot's precision could result from a steady aim over familiar sights, not a misaligned scope requiring guesswork.

Absent this explanation; I don't think there is any way Oswald fired 3 shots (2 accurately) in that timeframe, while cycling the bolt, using that scope to re-acquire the target each time.

---

Now, I think your conclusion based on your expertise and the FBI findings is correct in part. He absolutely could have used the iron sights the way the rifle was set up. And the FBI found that he could cycle the gun, acquire the target and fire with the Iron sights in 1.65-175 seconds. So without you reading the FBI report, your expertise and their expertise comes to the same conclusion. He had plenty of training and had the ability and time to cycle the gun, acquire the target and fire on target using iron sights, and not using the scope.

Your reasoning for him using the iron sights instead of the scope makes a lot of sense. And because his rifle was set up to be able to use either, he could have done either one. Like you pointed out, he was well trained on the iron sights. I know that even now, many people prefer iron sights. John "Shrek" McPhee preaches to use iron sights over a red dot on your every day carry and that is what he does.

With the FBI's time of 1.75s to cycle, reacquire, and fire, do you think he could have done it with the iron sights? He had 6 to 8 (or 11-13 if the first shot was before Zapruder turned on the camera) seconds to cycle and fire two more shots.

Again, thanks again for sharing your expertise with everyone!

---

Let me know if I don't address all the points your raise:

• "That does leave out that he did qualify previously as a Sharpshooter at 212"; yes he did, in 1956. His shooting degraded after that to the poor 191 effort in 1959. I am a firm believer that "we don't rise to the level of our capability; we fall to the level of our training". So, exiting the Corps, he was a borderline Marine shooter; below average. More on this later; but nothing suggests his marksmanship habits improved post Marine Corps.

• "Here is the actual testimony from Major Anderson, a 26 year Marine veteran of WWII and Korea". The Major's POV ignores the reality of where Oswald was on exiting the Marines. At one time; with a lot of practice; Oswald was a middling Marine shooter. Later, after 3 years of being a ****-bird, he almost "unqued"... but as I said earlier; he was at least an average shooter vs the general shooting population.

• "Do you feel their estimate of a half second more to acquire the target in the scope is about right?" . Three points:
• Point 1: the times cited in the commission reports are based on those of expert shooters familiar with the weapon/action
• Point 2: An additional "half-second" second would be an "At least" assessment as far as I am concerned. At least for someone very familiar with the action; a well oiled, smooth action.
• I generally feel it would be much longer. Oswald owned the rifle for 242 days...he had it by the end of March 1963. Oswald reportedly practiced with the rifle minimally, if at all. Marina noted he cleaned and handled it at home. No records show him zeroing the scope or firing at a range, consistent with the FBI finding it un-zeroed. "....we fall to the level of our training".....
• This was an old, surplus, riftle/bolt. It is not known as having a "smooth bolt"... most old surplus rifles like this would have "worn and/or stiff" bolts" due to age and their less than refined production. It does have a shorter action than say a Remington or Mauser (6.5 x 52....1/2" to 1" shorter); so that would be in his favor; but the real time is involved is "unlocking (lifting the handle), pulling back, ejecting cartridge, pushing forward, locking (rotating down) the bolt" and then re-acquiring the target and aligning sightsnone of this guarantees accurate aim. That's to just get in a position to aim precisely.
• The Carcano bolt throw is going to be less smooth than even a Remington; which at least for me is not a smooth process; but requires about the same "height" for unlocking as a Remington.
• Cycling this fast; and maintaining a solid base and stable shooting position ... possible for a well trained shooter familiar with the action.
• Point 3: I don't think the scope was ever zeroed. It was not zeroed when found by the FBI. They had to shim it in place.

• "And because his rifle was set up to be able to use either, he could have done either one." I do not think he could have done either. Again, when found, the scope was not zeroed and had to be "shimmed" into place to zero it. He really only had one viable option....use the iron sights.

• Conclusion: I think the only way possible for him to pull off that shot was to use iron sights. Even with iron sights; just cycling the bolt (I would liken it to using a Remington action; not a faster Mauser action...and certainly not a Blaser straight pull action) in the time frame required would not be easy. All these Commission times were experts doing it...not a guy who didn't practice. Oswald's only training, as far as we know, was with a semi-auto M1....not a bolt action rifle....."we fall to the level of our training". If Oswald pulled these 3 shots off by himself; in under 8 seconds; he was the luckiest ******* in the world. I guess it happens....but strains credulity.

Ha ha! Guess I was wrong about your OP. Shoulda known better. Keep it coming.

Thanks for all the information. I appreciate it!

Japantiger,
I have known of this episode with Oswald and his rifle for a few years now. I can't "vouch" for everything as fact….but apparently Oswald and family "borrowed" Ruth Paine's husbands car and headed downtown to a "gun shop" on Nov 11 (11 days before the assassination) and he entered a furniture store which previously was a gun store and asked about getting a scope mounted on his rifle. (Store clerk recognized him and wife as Oswald once he was on tv for the assassination)….anyway, she sent down the street to the new location for the gun shop, and he asked to have a scope mounted on the carcano…there was an actual ticket for $6.00 filled out by Dial Ryder who apparently worked on the gun with and the ticket has Oswald's name on it. Keep in mind, he makes $1.25 an hour, so that's about 5 hours of work to pay for it. Anyway, apparently Ryder did the work that day and remounted Oswald's scope. Why he took it off in the first place is anyone's guess, as it came mounted with scope from Kleins. FBI came and interviewed Ryder who said yes and even identified the rifle, but later changed his story (maybe because he didn't want to be the guy that mounted the scope that killed the President and it would look pretty bad for the gun shop)z….anyway he did testify to the WC. There was a ticket written out for scope rings and bore sighting for $6.00 for "Oswald". FBI even asked others in Dallas named Oswald if it was them and of course they said no…..so bottom line…
if it was bore sighted in at the shop on Nov 11 and never fired again until the 22nd….there's zero chance that scope was sighted in, which leads some experts to believe he used the open iron sights to pull off the shots. (And the incident…if true…doesn't change any narrative about Oswald shooting….but it does narrow the window…..and there's no way the scope was sighted in unless he went to a firing range before the assassination).

https://www.scrollery.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/02/Irving-Sport-Shop-109-pdf.pdf

stetson said:

---

You can find an expert to counter any expert or argument. It doesn't mean they are right. Ballistic exit holes are larger than entrance holes. I will never believe that a shot that blew off a rear part of JFK's skull, which landed on the trunk of the limousine and that Jackie climbed back to retrieve, came from the rear. I also don't buy the "magic bullet" theory.

---

If you look really close in the slow mo JFK video, you see a very slight quick small jolt forward, before getting jolted backward in a more visible and pronounced motion. You also see the blood splatter from face.

This is consistent with getting shot from the front. I havent really seen this exact point made anywhere (if it exists, someone please post it).

The bullet energy first draws the mass towards the gunman, then back away. With splatter going in the direction of the gunman. It's consistent with the JFK vid, if you watch very closely.

The reaction to this argument kind of reminds me of the early reaction to lab leak and other conspiracy theories proven correct. The difference is many of them played out over few months or years, while this one is playing out over decades.

Conspiracy Theory = Spoiler Alert

Agristotle said:

---

Soup, is the JFK assassination your only obsession or do you have another subject that you are passionate about?

---

I don't know him personally, but I remember seeing some of his photography in the past. I don't think this is his only obsession. And I think he adds a lot to the JFK discussions.

Quote:

---

If you have experts that have thoroughly examined the evidence, and come to a different conclusion, I would love to read their methodology, reasoning, and conclusions.

---

It's called "muddying the waters". Bring in an expert to cite junk science such as goat studies to refute empirical evidence and confuse a jury/committee. You saw it in the Chauvin trial.

There is very little movement as JFK's body is almost pivoting through that turn onto Elm. From what I've read of Oswald, he had basically the same firearms training I had in the Army and the thought of detecting my shot would have never crossed my mind and I doubt it would have his. But we'll never know thanks to Jack Ruby and another rabbit hole!

Jugstore Cowboy said:

---

Agristotle said:

---

Soup, is the JFK assassination your only obsession or do you have another subject that you are passionate about?

---

I don't know him personally, but I remember seeing some of his photography in the past. I don't think this is his only obsession. And I think he adds a lot to the JFK discussions.

---

I remember him posting game day photos and always looked forward to them.

My interest around JFK had always been around Oswald. He lived a very eventful life for his 6/7 years of adulthood. I've read some books, seen many docs from every angle, and And this segment with Jefferson Morley sums it up for me. It's just too much slime behind the Oswald trail.

FobTies said:

---

stetson said:

---

You can find an expert to counter any expert or argument. It doesn't mean they are right. Ballistic exit holes are larger than entrance holes. I will never believe that a shot that blew off a rear part of JFK's skull, which landed on the trunk of the limousine and that Jackie climbed back to retrieve, came from the rear. I also don't buy the "magic bullet" theory.

---

If you look really close in the slow mo JFK video, you see a very slight quick small jolt forward, before getting jolted backward in a more visible motion. You also see the blood splatter from face.

This is actually consistent with getting shot from the front. I havent really seen this exact point made anywhere (if it exists, post it). The bullet energy first draws the mass towards the gunman, then back away. With splatter going in the direction of the gunman. It's consistent with the JFK vid, if you watch very closely.

---

The small initial forward movement was confirmed by analysis of the Zapruder film by Itek Corporation in 1975. There is a detailed explanation in Case Closed for the seemingly contradictory movement of JFK's head from the 3rd bullet. Since this is a frequent source of confusion for both conspiracy buffs and honest skeptics, I'll quote from the Kindle edition of the book for convenience. (Numbers relate to footnotes and citations in the book.)

Quote:

---

But if the President was struck in the head by a bullet fired from the rear, then why does he jerk so violently backward on the Zapruder film, which recorded the assassination? To most lay people, the rapid backward movement at the moment of the head shot means the President was struck from the front. "That's absolutely wrong," says Dr. Michael Baden. "People have no conception of how real life works with bullet wounds. It's not like Hollywood, where someone gets shot and falls over backwards. Reactions are different on each shot and on each person."107 In the case of President Kennedy's head wound and the reaction on the Zapruder film, the Itek Optical Systems did a computer enhancement for a CBS documentary. Itek discovered that when the bullet hit JFK, he first jerked forward 2.3 inches before starting his rapid movement backward.108 Unless the film is slowed considerably and enhanced, the forward motion is not detectable. The backward movement is the result of two factors. First, when the bullet destroyed the President's cortex, it caused a neuromuscular spasm, which sent a massive discharge of neurologic impulses from the injured brain shooting down the spine to every muscle in the body.109 "The body then stiffens," said Dr. John Lattimer, "with the strongest muscles predominating. These are the muscles of the back and neck …"110 They contract, lurching the body upward and to the rear.* The President's back brace likely accentuated the movement, preventing him from falling forward. At the same instant the President's body was in a neuromuscular seizure, the bullet exploded out the right side of his head. Dr. Luis Alvarez, a Nobel Prize-winning physicist, focused on that to discover the second factor that drove the President's head back with such force. Dubbed the "jet effect," Dr. Alvarez established it both through physical experiments that re-created the head shot and extensive laboratory calculations. He found that when the brain and blood tissue exploded out JFK's head, they carried forward more momentum than was brought in by the bullet. That caused the head to thrust backwardin an opposite directionas a rocket does when its jet fuel is ejected.111 Because the bullet exited on the right side of JFK's head, it forced him to be propelled back and to the left, exactly what is visible on the Zapruder film. "So much has been made of Kennedy's movement in the Zapruder film," says Dr. Baden, "and yet it is one of the least important parts of the case. By his movement alone, you can't tell which direction he was shot from. You then need to examine the bullets, the bones, tissue, X rays, and photographs to determine from where the bullet came. I have personally done thousands of gunshot autopsies. There is no doubt that the bullets that hit John Kennedy, both in the neck and in the head, came from the rear. Nothing hit him from the front."112

---

G Martin 87 said:

---

First, when the bullet destroyed the President's cortex, it caused a neuromuscular spasm, which sent a massive discharge of neurologic impulses from the injured brain shooting down the spine to every muscle in the body.109 "The body then stiffens," said Dr. John Lattimer, "with the strongest muscles predominating. These are the muscles of the back and neck …"110 They contract, lurching the body upward and to the rear.*

---

I appreciate you taking the time to respond. But this is the opposite arguement. The "expert" says that the initial bullet impact from behind caused a quick jolt forward via physics, then JFK spasmed backwards. My claim in the video above can be seen in inanimate object with no nervous systems or muscles.

My arguement for the lab leak theory had nothing to do with the biological structure of the virus that everyone else was arguing. It had to do with math and geography. Tens of thousands of wet markets across China, and one single virus lab at epicenter.

Likewise, this is also totally seperate from the prevailing spasm arguement. If anyone can refute my claim that the intial jolt forward is due to ballistic impact from the front, I would love to see it. I think the video speaks for itself.

FobTies said:

---

G Martin 87 said:

---

First, when the bullet destroyed the President's cortex, it caused a neuromuscular spasm, which sent a massive discharge of neurologic impulses from the injured brain shooting down the spine to every muscle in the body.109 "The body then stiffens," said Dr. John Lattimer, "with the strongest muscles predominating. These are the muscles of the back and neck …"110 They contract, lurching the body upward and to the rear.*

---

I appreciate you taking the time to respond. I have seen this spasm arguement for the thrust forward. However, what I posted was totally different. It's about ballistic energy and physics, things that can be observed in inanimate objects that dont have muscles or nervous systems.

My arguement for the lab leak theory had nothing to do with the biological structure of the virus that everyone else was arguing. It had to do with math and geography. Tens of thousands of wet markets across China, and one single virus lab at epicenter.

Likewise, this is also totally seperate from the prevailing spasm arguement. If anyone can refute my claim that the intial jolt forward is due to ballistic impact, I would love to see it. I think the video speaks for itself.

---

There's a lot of information here, but it relates to both the initial movement forwards (towards the front of the car) and the subsequent movement backwards (towards the rear of the car.) The forwards movement you asked about was confirmed in 1975 by film analysis. That could have been caused by the impact and transfer of energy from the 3rd bullet, which entered the rear of JFK's skull. The neuromuscular reaction and "jet effect" caused the backwards movement, not the forward movement.

In other words, we agree that the forward movement was caused by the ballistic impact.

FobTies said:

---

G Martin 87 said:

---

First, when the bullet destroyed the President's cortex, it caused a neuromuscular spasm, which sent a massive discharge of neurologic impulses from the injured brain shooting down the spine to every muscle in the body.109 "The body then stiffens," said Dr. John Lattimer, "with the strongest muscles predominating. These are the muscles of the back and neck …"110 They contract, lurching the body upward and to the rear.*

---

I appreciate you taking the time to respond. I have seen this spasm arguement for the thrust forward. However, what I posted was totally different. It's about ballistic energy and physics, things that can be observed in inanimate objects that dont have muscles or nervous systems.

My arguement for the lab leak theory had nothing to do with the biological structure of the virus that everyone else was arguing. It had to do with math and geography. Tens of thousands of wet markets across China, and one single virus lab at epicenter.

Likewise, this is also totally seperate from the prevailing spasm arguement. If anyone can refute my claim that the intial jolt forward is due to ballistic impact, I would love to see it. I think the video speaks for itself.

---

If the analysis from a Nobel prize winning physicist isn't enough to "refute your claim" I doubt anyone else can convince you

I'm not sure, it looks like the arguement you posted claims the bullet impact was from behind, whereas I am claiming it came from front (I edited my post to clarify that).

So we are in agreement if you also think JFK was shot in face, and the intial jolt forward towards the shooter proves that. While the subsequent movement backwards is secondary force from bullet and possibly muscles/spasm.

FishrCoAg said:

---

FobTies said:

---

G Martin 87 said:

---

First, when the bullet destroyed the President's cortex, it caused a neuromuscular spasm, which sent a massive discharge of neurologic impulses from the injured brain shooting down the spine to every muscle in the body.109 "The body then stiffens," said Dr. John Lattimer, "with the strongest muscles predominating. These are the muscles of the back and neck …"110 They contract, lurching the body upward and to the rear.*

---

I appreciate you taking the time to respond. I have seen this spasm arguement for the thrust forward. However, what I posted was totally different. It's about ballistic energy and physics, things that can be observed in inanimate objects that dont have muscles or nervous systems.

My arguement for the lab leak theory had nothing to do with the biological structure of the virus that everyone else was arguing. It had to do with math and geography. Tens of thousands of wet markets across China, and one single virus lab at epicenter.

Likewise, this is also totally seperate from the prevailing spasm arguement. If anyone can refute my claim that the intial jolt forward is due to ballistic impact, I would love to see it. I think the video speaks for itself.

---

If the analysis from a Nobel prize winning physicist isn't enough to "refute your claim" I doubt anyone else can convince you

---

One of us is misunderstanding what FobTies is claiming. There is a very small movement of JFK's head forwards before his head and body moved much more violently backwards and to the left. FobTies is claiming that the initial forward movement was due to the ballistic impact of the bullet. At least, that's how it reads.

ETA - I see now. No, FobTies and I do not agree on where the shot came from. There is no physical or medical evidence that JFK was shot from the front.

FishrCoAg said:

---

If the analysis from a Nobel prize winning physicist isn't enough to "refute your claim" I doubt anyone else can convince you

---

Actually no, arguements that are based on authority or consensus only make them more questionable.

Not sure if you are being sarcastic?

From Einstein to COVID, the arguement of authority and consensus has failed miserably.

G Martin 87 said:

---

FobTies is claiming that the initial forward movement was due to the ballistic impact of the bullet. At least, that's how it reads.

ETA - I see now. No, FobTies and I do not agree on where the shot came from. There is no physical or medical evidence that JFK was shot from the front.

---

Yes, that is what I'm saying. I posted a video that articulates the point.

Is there also "no evidence" that the bullet caused these armor plates to initally move towards the shooter?

Forget JFK for a moment. Can anyone explain why the intial movement of these armor plates was towards the shooter? Lets start there...

In the YouTube video you posted, there is clearly physical evidence that the target was shot. i.e., a big hole and lots of damage. The entry wound on JFK's head was on the rear, not the front, of his skull. The exit wound was on the right side. All of the physical and medical evidence confirms this. You are looking at a YouTube video of the behavior of an inanimate target and concluding that JFK must have therefore been shot from the front based on the video. Does that not seem thin to you?

G Martin 87 said:

---

In the YouTube video you posted, there is clearly physical evidence that the target was shot. i.e., a big hole and lots of damage. The entry wound on JFK's head was on the rear, not the front, of his skull. The exit wound was on the right side. All of the physical and medical evidence confirms this. You are looking at a YouTube video of the behavior of an inanimate target and concluding that JFK must have therefore been shot from the front based on the video. Does that not seem thin to you?

---

The entry and exit wound is a separate arguement, as that is not visible in the grainy video. In terms of exit wound location, skulls can divert randomly, but also a seperate arguement than what I brought forward on ballistics.

We can all weigh evidence differently. I put more weight on physics, than I do on people. I put more weight on math, than the official memo of an award winning virus expert. I put more weight on geology, than the 90% of climatologists trying to secure grants.

We put our trust in crash test dummies to observe the energy of car crashes. Not sure why observing ballistic physics on inanimate objects is much different.

That said, I would love to see someone tie a hog to the back seat of a Lincoln and shoot it in face to record super high def slow mo. I think you would see the same intial movement towards the shooter as you see in my video.

The initial movement of JFK comes from the bullet impact, not muscles/nervous system. BOTH sides (rear shooter & front shooter) agree on that. So a living being is technically irrelevant. The only question is does the physics of ballistic impact first move a body towards or away from the shooter?

I gave it a go at proving it's towards in my video.

FishrCoAg said:

---

FobTies said:

---

G Martin 87 said:

---

First, when the bullet destroyed the President's cortex, it caused a neuromuscular spasm, which sent a massive discharge of neurologic impulses from the injured brain shooting down the spine to every muscle in the body.109 "The body then stiffens," said Dr. John Lattimer, "with the strongest muscles predominating. These are the muscles of the back and neck …"110 They contract, lurching the body upward and to the rear.*

---

I appreciate you taking the time to respond. I have seen this spasm arguement for the thrust forward. However, what I posted was totally different. It's about ballistic energy and physics, things that can be observed in inanimate objects that dont have muscles or nervous systems.

My arguement for the lab leak theory had nothing to do with the biological structure of the virus that everyone else was arguing. It had to do with math and geography. Tens of thousands of wet markets across China, and one single virus lab at epicenter.

Likewise, this is also totally seperate from the prevailing spasm arguement. If anyone can refute my claim that the intial jolt forward is due to ballistic impact, I would love to see it. I think the video speaks for itself.

---

If the analysis from a Nobel prize winning physicist isn't enough to "refute your claim" I doubt anyone else can convince you

---

In a sane universe, I'd be inclined to agree. But since they started giving Nobels to clowns who did nothing for purely political reasons, I am now of the mind that clouds the entirety of Nobel prizes. The Nobel prize once meant something meaningful, but now, it's just another worthless award that liberals love to bestow upon other (mostly) liberals.

That's not to discount whatever the physicist said or to call into question this spasming thing, that's just pointing out that a Nobel prize is no longer the authority that it once was.

FobTies said:

---

G Martin 87 said:

---

In the YouTube video you posted, there is clearly physical evidence that the target was shot. i.e., a big hole and lots of damage. The entry wound on JFK's head was on the rear, not the front, of his skull. The exit wound was on the right side. All of the physical and medical evidence confirms this. You are looking at a YouTube video of the behavior of an inanimate target and concluding that JFK must have therefore been shot from the front based on the video. Does that not seem thin to you?

---

The entry and exit wound is a separate arguement, as that is not visible in the grainy video. In terms of exit wound location, skulls can divert randomly, but also a seperate arguement than what I brought forward on ballistics.

We can all weigh evidence differently. I put more weight on physics, than I do on people. I put more weight on math, than the official memo of an award winning virus expert. I put more weight on geology, than the 90% of climatologists trying to secure grants.

We put our trust in crash test dummies to observe the energy of car crashes. Not sure why observing ballistic physics on inanimate objects is much different.

That said, I would love to see someone tie a hog to the back seat of a Lincoln and shoot it in face to record super high def slow mo. I think you would see the same intial movement towards the shooter as you see in my video.

The initial movement of JFK comes from the bullet impact, not muscles/nervous system. BOTH sides (rear shooter & front shooter) agree on that. So a living being is technically irrelevant. The only question is does the physics of ballistic impact first move a body towards or away from the shooter?

I gave it a go at proving it's towards in my video.

---

The factual location of the entry and exit wounds is the only relevant part of the argument, though. There are no entry or exit wounds on the front of JFK's skull to support your inference that JFK must have been shot in the face based on this YouTube video.

Ok, are you conceeding that you have no explanation related to the ballistic video I posted, therefore we should shift topics to the entry and exit wounds?

If so, that's perfectly fine.

FobTies said:

---

Ok, are you conceeding that you have no explanation related to the ballistic video I posted, therefore we should shift topics to the entry and exit wounds?

If so, that's perfectly fine.

---

I can't explain the plate behavior in the video, but I don't need to in order to understand that the video doesn't prove that JFK was shot in the front of the head. There are no bullet wounds on JFK's face. QED.

I look forward to the original high quality autopsy photos being released and independently authenticated. I really don't see any reason why they haven't been yet. Until then, I remain cautious with regards to leaked images, handwritten diagrams, gov investigations and testimony about entry and exit (from both sides).

We know with 100% certainty that local officials frequently botched cause of death rulings in 60s, sometimes in an egregiously nefarious manner (ie Henry Marshall). You don't hear people talk about how difficult those "conspiracies" would be to pull off. Just the JFK "conspiracy" that would no doubt have much more careful and thorough documentation/witnesses.

Maybe in the future we will get others to corroborate the ballistics/movements with more testing, and maybe we will get more conclusive confirmation on the wounds. Until then not much else to do but demand more scrutiny where little has been paid.

Guitarsoup said:

---

Agristotle said:

---

Soup, is the JFK assassination your only obsession or do you have another subject that you are passionate about?

---

I like following true crime cases that happen. Currently following the Karen Read case in Boston and the Idaho student/Kohberger case. I am in grad school for something completely unrelated to any of this, but certainly helps with my research and writing. My wife and daughter are heavily involved in music, so I've learned a good bit about that, but I don't pursue it independently like I do other interests.

There was a time I really loved Aggie sports.

Sometimes I play around with photography, too.

---

Don't forget about the Spurs and the NBA in general.

FobTies said:

---

I look forward to the original high quality autopsy photos being released and independently authenticated. I really don't see any reason why they haven't been yet. Until then, I remain cautious with regards to leaked images, handwritten diagrams, gov investigations and testimony about entry and exit (from both sides).

---

I expect this will come as a shock to you, but John Stringer, the chief of photography at Bethesda and the person who took those original autopsy photos, has confirmed the authenticity of the autopsy photos in the National Archives twice: Nov 1, 1966, and again in 1993. Moreover, the House Select Committee also studied the photos and x-rays and confirmed the authenticity.

Quote:

---

Maybe in the future we will get others to corroborate the ballistics/movements with more testing, and maybe we will get more conclusive confirmation on the wounds. Until then not much else to do but demand more scrutiny where little has been paid.

---

The ballistics/movements have been exhaustively studied. The wounds have been conclusively confirmed. With the exception of the dictabelt recording, which was later proven to be a recording some minutes after the assassination at the Trade Mart and not in Dealey Plaza, the House Select Committee actually did a very thorough re-investigation into all of the testimony and evidence. But I don't expect you to change your mind just because of my post. You'll have to read what the Warren Commission and House Select Committee actually reported and stop listening to what the conspiracy theorists claim they reported. Then, if you've made it that far, you'll have to take the final step: having the courage to believe that JFK died a senseless death at the hands of a mentally unstable worm like Lee Harvey Oswald who happened to be in the right place at the right time.

Yes, I was aware that rather than release everything to the peasants in the public, the experts were relied on to relay info to the public.

Imagine if 50 different experts and officials were all invited by the CIA to a SCIF to review classified forensic evidence proving JFK was shot in the back of the head. Then they wrote a signed letter about how JFK getting shot from the front was a wild conspiracy theory, with all the hallmarks of Russian Disninfo. Well, with that many sigs from trusted experts, you would have to take it to the bank. Case closed. It's a "fact".

Now replace those 50 officials with a small handful of very well vetted Historians and Medical Examiners. We got to take their word as gospel, right? They would never purposely or unwittingly mislead the public about JFKs wounds. It's impossible. Just like how the initial movement of a bullet impact could never be towards the shooter, impossible.

So the 1963 JFK autopsy was totally conclusive and above board, with only one outcome possible. While a 2020 Floyd autopsy was totally manipulated and corrupt, with two seperate outcomes. I guess since the gov was so involved in the JFK autopsy, we can rest assured, it's more reliable.

Horse. Water. It's over there.

Yep, if you took time to read my response, you might learn sometimes water may actually be kool-aid. So you shouldn't go around slurping up everything based on "official" consensus from award winning "experts".

Guitarsoup - apply your skills to the Missy Bevers murder.

I actually knew her and it pisses me off the police have had their heads up their asses for years now.