From: karn@servo.qualcomm.com (Phil Karn)
Subject: Re: mortal error
Organization: Qualcomm, Inc
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 18:54:10 GMT

In article <schuck.718439251@sfu.ca> Bruce_Schuck@sfu.ca writes:
>Have you never heard of backsplash? When a rifle bullet is fired into
>a liquid filled vessel such as a jug of water or a human brain there
>is tendency for material to splash backwards out of the hole.

Nope, sorry, I haven't. When you fire a bullet into a human head, you
invariably form a small entrance hole and a large exit wound. Nothing
"splashes" out of the entrance hole, although of course blood could
start coming out later. This is not speculation, this is verified fact.
Ask any doctor or forensic specialist skilled in gunshot wounds.

>Acceleration? It was going 12 mph at the time and if you knew anything
>about physics you would know that bodies in motion tend to continue in
>motion. As for wind, there is no proof of a wind capable of sending
>brain matter back fast enough so the impact made the 
>Motorcycle Officer to JFK's rear and left think he was shot

I feel I have a pretty good understanding of physics, thank you very much.
The limo accelerated shortly after the last shot. And there certainly
*was* a wind -- it was 12 mph relative to the limo, if that was in fact
the limo's speed.

>There is no evidence of a neuromuscular spasm. There is no evidence of
>any spasming at all. In fact there is evidence that JFK's spinal cord
>was so damaged that he would have been paralyzed.

Sure there is -- it's quite visible on the film (you just choose to believe
it is something else). The phenomenon is well established among those
in the field. Consider also the "jet effect" of all that brain tissue
and blood being expelled from the side of JFK's head.

>>Remember also that JFK wore a back brace, which could easily have
>>affected his body motions after the impact.
>
>Yes. It would have tended to keep him upright, which means the head
>impact was a strong one indeed.

You're being obtuse. The back brace would *probably* have kept him
from slumping forward after the shot. However, I don't have any
personal knowledge of this and I haven't seen any expert evaluation of
the effect it would have had, so unlike some other people here I am
willing to reserve any judgement on what effect the brace actually
had.

>>The "gunshots" have never been proven to *be* gunshots either. 
>
>The FBI compared the gunshots to those recorded in a similar fashion
>at a shooting at a Ku Klux Klan rally that turned into a gunfight.
>The FBI conclusion was that the gunshots recorded were indeed gunshots.
>
>>I thought the NRC report took care of that issue.
>
>NRC? It was the NAS and they attacked peripheral issues. They never
>succeeded in proving the gunshots were anything but gunshots.

The NRC is under the NAS. But yes, they most certainly did demonstrate
that the so-called "gunshots" were recorded a minute after the
assassination. Since these supposed gunshots were the ONLY basis for
the House committee's conclusion that there was a probable conspiracy,
we were again left with the Warren Commission report as the best fit
to all of the available evidence. Note that even the House committee
had already verified all of the other major conclusions of the Warren
Commission Report.

Phil
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk