HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Topics » Offbeat » Creative Speculation (Group) » Arlen Specter did not pro...

Sun Dec 16, 2012, 09:58 PM

Arlen Specter did not propose the "magic bullet theory"

Arlen Specter proposed the "single bullet theory," i.e. that a single bullet passed through the base of JFK's neck and hit Governor Connally. It was based on the observation that a shot from Oswald's position passing through the base of JFK's neck could scarcely avoid hitting Connally, but if it had, then some trace of where it did hit should have been found in the limo. There was none.

Rather, the "magic bullet theory" is what the conspiracy theorists propose, although it might better be called the "single bullet illusion": It asserts that a bullet magically (or through deception) dematerialized after passing through JFK, or that it magically (or through deception) materialized within the limo and passed through JFK front-to-back.

The supposed reason for staging this complicated grand illusion is a bit of a mystery to me, however. Anyone care to take a stab at explaining it?


22 replies, 8454 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 22 replies Author Time Post
Reply Arlen Specter did not propose the "magic bullet theory" (Original post)
William Seger Dec 2012 OP
Frank_Norris_Lives Dec 2012 #1
William Seger Dec 2012 #2
Frank_Norris_Lives Dec 2012 #3
MrMickeysMom Dec 2012 #5
William Seger Dec 2012 #6
cherokeeprogressive Dec 2012 #8
Frank_Norris_Lives Dec 2012 #9
cherokeeprogressive Dec 2012 #10
Frank_Norris_Lives Dec 2012 #15
William Seger Dec 2012 #17
Frank_Norris_Lives Dec 2012 #18
William Seger Dec 2012 #20
cherokeeprogressive Dec 2012 #11
Frank_Norris_Lives Dec 2012 #12
cherokeeprogressive Dec 2012 #13
Frank_Norris_Lives Dec 2012 #14
William Seger Dec 2012 #16
Frank_Norris_Lives Dec 2012 #19
William Seger Dec 2012 #21
MrMickeysMom Dec 2012 #4
William Seger Dec 2012 #7
Name removed Mar 2020 #22

Response to William Seger (Original post)

Mon Dec 17, 2012, 03:53 AM

1. There was no trace....

...of the bullet shot from Oswald's position that went through Kennedy's neck? Hmmmm. Maybe then the bullet that went through Kennedy's neck didn't come from Oswald's alleged position. If one starts with a bad assumption.....

I, for my part, have never heard a satisfactory explanation for why an assassin's bullet, fired from the rear, would cause a victim's head & brain matter to also jerk & jettison to the rear. The official assertion that shots were only fired from a 6th floor window at the rear has always struck me as a bald-faced lie.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Frank_Norris_Lives (Reply #1)

Mon Dec 17, 2012, 05:03 AM

2. The origin of the shot is not an "assumption"

That origin of the shot can be inferred directly by from path of the bullet through the body, which was downward into the limo at a slight angle. Not at all surprisingly, it points back fairly precisely to where Oswald's gun, which apparently fired it, was found. You seem to be proposing yet another "magic bullet theory" that says the bullet came from somewhere else but somehow curved around and only appeared to come from where Oswald's gun was found.

And you bring up yet another "magic bullet theory": that the forward head-snap that we see in the Zapruder film in the first frame after the hit was magically caused by a bullet from the front-right, but the "back and to the left" that we see two frames later was caused by some magical delay in transferring momentum from the bullet.



(Much more: http://www.google.com/search?q=jfk+forward+head+snap)

> The official assertion that shots were only fired from a 6th floor window at the rear has always struck me as a bald-faced lie.

Applying actual physics to an accurate observation of what the Zapruder film actually shows, the assertion that the shot came from anywhere other than behind strikes me as a bald-faced lie. There are several possible explanations for the "back and to the left" motion which came later, but since momentum from the bullet would be transferred instantaneously, it is not on that list of possible explanations.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to William Seger (Reply #2)

Mon Dec 17, 2012, 11:15 AM

3. Oh my Gawd....

.....I'd truly forgotten how tedious all this Kennedy crap is.

Suffice it to say that a man who was 'found' a job at the book depository just weeks before, who was found calmly eating his sandwich 6 floors below the 'sniper's nest' barely minutes after the shooting and, having allegedly committed the greatest assassination since Sarajevo after long, committed preparation, having knowingly left his prints on the rifle wrapping, weapon and cartridges, stands up at a press conference and denies his act, was not the assassin.

Everything beyond that is a purposeful mess. As Posner would say, "Case closed."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Frank_Norris_Lives (Reply #3)

Mon Dec 17, 2012, 08:08 PM

5. Posner, depending on where he is... says different things about this...

He's a sell out who has made the 6th floor museum what it is today.

You know, when you visit the 6th Floor Museum, you'll see the window where the shooter was to have been EXACTLY as it was November 22, 1963... EMPTY.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Frank_Norris_Lives (Reply #3)

Mon Dec 17, 2012, 11:15 PM

6. Well, you're the one who brought up the "jerk & jettison to the rear" nonsense

... which is refuted by accurate observation of the Zapruder film: The head snapped forward immediately after the hit (as did the cloud of blood and matter, by the way). My point remains that it's really the conspiracists who apparently believe in magical bullets, or else they believe that an unnecessarily elaborate and risky hoax and coverup was concocted for no apparent reason. My question is, why would they do that? Wouldn't you think the alleged perps could come up with something much simpler and less risky?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Frank_Norris_Lives (Reply #3)

Sun Dec 23, 2012, 04:48 PM

8. Contributing to the tedious nature of discussion concerning the Kennedy assassination are people...

 

like you. You made a claim. That claim was shown to be either mistaken or willfully false.

Rather than address your initial claim, you turned the conversation in a different direction entirely.

That, my friend, is the DEFINITION of tedious.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cherokeeprogressive (Reply #8)

Mon Dec 24, 2012, 08:47 AM

9. Ok, I'll bite.....

....what claim would that be?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Frank_Norris_Lives (Reply #9)

Mon Dec 24, 2012, 11:24 PM

10. In your own words...

 

"I, for my part, have never heard a satisfactory explanation for why an assassin's bullet, fired from the rear, would cause a victim's head & brain matter to also jerk & jettison to the rear."

You were SHOWN a sequence of frames from Zapruder's film, and those frames showed his head moving forward, along with the ejecta. Did you address it? Noooooo. You immediately took another tack.

That's what "claim" that would be.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cherokeeprogressive (Reply #10)

Fri Dec 28, 2012, 02:25 PM

15. I see....

....he and she moving forward when he's hit.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Frank_Norris_Lives (Reply #15)

Sat Dec 29, 2012, 05:37 AM

17. Nope

The frames before that do not show any forward motion. The forward head snap was very sudden, and since it happened within 1/18th of a second, it was very violent, as should be expected from a bullet hit.

Another specious objection is that the frame after the hit is very blurred (because the camera was moving), which makes it harder to analyze, but I have aligned the two so that the forward edge of the motion blur in the second frame is approximately aligned with the forward edge of the objects in the first frame. That means that any apparent forward motion of the head cannot be explained by motion blurring.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to William Seger (Reply #17)

Sat Dec 29, 2012, 06:32 AM

18. If I look....

at Mrs. Kennedy's left shoulder in relation to the interior door handle to the right, she's moving forward in this sequence too.

But she wasn't shot was she?

This must be the moment where William Greer brakes the limousine. That explains how she, turned to the side, is better braced against the breaking automobile and doesn't move forward as much as the President does who is facing forward and whose body is now failing and not bracing against the breaking car.

I would like to see a larger frame of this moment to see what the Connelly's bodies are doing but to me, since Mrs. Kennedy is moving forward at the same time, both of them are responding to an outside force and he logically more than she.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Frank_Norris_Lives (Reply #18)

Sat Dec 29, 2012, 11:39 AM

20. Nope

None of the people are moving forward appreciably in the frames before 313, and in 313, JFK is the only one that snaps forward a couple of inches. (This sequence also shows that the "back and to the left" began two frames after the hit, BTW.)



Furthermore, the forward snap is actually noticeable even watching the film in real time. That's how I first noticed it, and I did that first animated gif I posted to prove what it appeared to show. Then, when I started looking around the web, I found that the forward snap has been quite well known in some circles and it had been precisely analyzed long ago.

As for the blur confusing things, here are the results from four different programs that attempt to remove motion blur:

Focus Magic:


Magic Sharpener:


Unblur:


Unshake:


The forward head snap is quite real and it demands an explanation. Fortunately, an easy one is at hand, and it's perfectly consistent with all the other credible evidence, regardless of five decades of obsessing about an apparently imaginary shooter on the grassy knoll.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Frank_Norris_Lives (Reply #9)

Tue Dec 25, 2012, 03:31 PM

11. No witty retort?

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cherokeeprogressive (Reply #11)

Thu Dec 27, 2012, 04:31 PM

12. Have been....

...digesting food & family. Burp. Will get to it soon. Happy Holidays!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Frank_Norris_Lives (Reply #12)

Thu Dec 27, 2012, 10:44 PM

13. Happy Holidays to you as well. n/t

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to William Seger (Reply #2)

Fri Dec 28, 2012, 12:04 PM

14. Let's back up here for a second...

...what do you propose we are seeing in this clip you posted?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Frank_Norris_Lives (Reply #14)

Sat Dec 29, 2012, 05:27 AM

16. It's the two frames immediately before and after the hit

... and what it shows is that the head snapped forward immediately after the hit, not "back and to the left." Several people have done precise analyses (see the Google search link) that came up with about 2 to 2.5 inches forward. As the bullet traversed the head, it slowed down, and by the law of momentum conservation, the momentum that the bullet lost by slowing down was instantaneously transferred to the head. The important point is that the bullet transferred momentum to the head only while it was in contact with the head. Since it is already long gone by that second frame, the bullet cannot impart any more momentum to the head after that second frame. The "back and to the left" motion, however, starts two frames after the hit and it accelerates for several frames, and neither of those facts can be explained by momentum transfer from the bullet. Therefore, that forward head snap unambiguously implies that the shot came from behind.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to William Seger (Reply #16)

Sat Dec 29, 2012, 06:37 AM

19. This is dependent...

...on your conclusion that this sequence shows the moment of impact of a bullet coming from behind but as I wrote above, there's a another explanation for the 'forward snap'.

And, your thesis does not explain how the forward momentum of a bullet from behind throws his head back as we see but a moment later.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Frank_Norris_Lives (Reply #19)

Sat Dec 29, 2012, 12:20 PM

21. Your explanation doesn't work

The other people in the car do not snap forward the way JFK's head does.

> And, your thesis does not explain how the forward momentum of a bullet from behind throws his head back as we see but a moment later.

Again, the point is, the "back and to the left" cannot be explained by momentum from the bullet because (A) it doesn't start until two frames after the hit, whereas momentum transfer must be simultaneous with the bullet losing velocity, and (B) that motion shows acceleration for several frames, which implies that some force is still acting on the head and shoulders, which can't possibly be the bullet.

And again, it isn't necessary to explain the "back and to the left" to say that it wasn't caused by the bullet hit, but there are several explanations available. I believe the most plausible explanation is that it's simply a jerk -- a neuromuscular reflex reaction to being hit by a bullet. While the infamous Alverez "jet effect" is based on real physics and must have contributed some backward force, it doesn't appear that the "jet" continued long enough to explain that acceleration for several frames. The compression of the spine itself would cause some backward force, too, sufficient to stop and reverse forward motion, but that also doesn't explain the acceleration for several frames after that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to William Seger (Original post)

Mon Dec 17, 2012, 08:06 PM

4. Who said that?

You did.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MrMickeysMom (Reply #4)

Mon Dec 17, 2012, 11:24 PM

7. Well, there's a profound observation


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to William Seger (Original post)

Reply to this thread