From: mst4298@sigma.tamu.edu (Mitchell S Todd)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
Subject: Re: Neuro-Muscular Reaction
Date: 17 Apr 92 00:09:00 GMT
Organization: Incontinental Blather, Inc
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

In article <33007@darkstar.ucsc.edu>, david@cats.ucsc.edu (David Wright) writes...
> 
>In article <14APR199215333530@rigel.tamu.edu> mst4298@rigel.tamu.edu (Mitchell S Todd) writes:
>|(David Wright) writes...
>|>mst4298@zeus.tamu.edu (Mitchell S Todd) writes:
>|>|david@cats.ucsc.edu (David Wright) writes...

>|	However, I am perfectly willing to give Mr Wright a chance
>|	to rebut. To wit: What, Mr Wright, are clues in the Z-film
>|	that led you to believe that JFK's back isn't arching at all?

>The suit matched the back, if the back arch, the suit would arch somewhat. The
>back is not tottally independent of the suit, since the latter rests on the
>former.  Again, there is no evidence for arching.

	What do you mean 'the suit matched the back'? Was JFK wearing
	Brooks Bros. in Spandex? The problem given by the suit is that
	the only place where the jacket will remain necessarily 'attatched'
	to the body is along the top of the shoulders (and sometimes not
	even then) and at the juction between the sleeves and coat proper.
	There is no reason for the jacket to follow the contours of the
	body; in fact, suits are generally designed to hide and/or
	distort the shape of the body. Now, JFK's back already had a limited
	range of motion, because of all the hardware the President wore to
	ease his back problems. The arch in JFK's back would be much
	less prononced than, say, any bystander's. Given this and the clothing
	JFK was wearing, I doub't that you'd have much luck looking for an
	arch at all.


>|	Before I go further, I will ask you a few questions, since I 
>|	seem to have problems understanding your understanding of the
>|	NM reaction theory.

>I have given you the sources and explanations of the Neuro-Muscular reaction.
>There is no reason to repost again. That would be futile.

	The only source I remember from you is Kurtz. If someone else
	would please fill me in...
		



>|	According to Sturdivan's film (shown before the HSCA), the
>|	delay between the bullet hitting the goat and the time the
>|	NMR begins is .4 frames, less than one Zapruder frame.

>Which is another inconsistency I am glad you reminded of. The upward motion of
>the head does not occur untill the fourth frame after the bullet impacted the
>skull.

	The *fourth* frame after? Do you know what this means for the
	Knoll shooter theory? For a NMR theory, I can always fall back
	on the normal variations of neural response; to assume that JFK's
	head is pushed up by the residual momenta of bullet fragments	
	falls apart in the face of this (and if the head pulls the body
	up, well...). What, then, is your mechanism for JFK's motions	
	after 312?



>|	The poster you mention refers to the head's rotation. I was
>|	rebutting your assertion that the head 'pulls' the body upwards
>|	and backwards. If there was any confusion, I apologize.

>No, that is indeed what I have, and many others have been saying. The head
>moves and pulls the body up and to the left, more the latter than the former,
>of course.

	Well, then. When you presented you synopsis of the consensus
	of z-film observers, why did you then omit the part about the
	'head pulling the body up'? In fact, why do you then go on
	to state that this omission from the consensus view is	
	"irrelevent"?


>|>Also, this top theory seems so absurd. Muscles don't simply contract,
>|>some of them extend. There is nothing to indicate how the muscles of the neck
>|>should perform, either to extend or contract.

>|	apparently, Wright seems to beleive that the goat's legs just
>|	stiffened up into four meaty statues, and that JFK would apparently
>|	have to assume a double barrelled Statue of Liberty pose in
>|	order to evidence the neuro-muscular reaction.

>Kennedy would stiffen his limbs, or extend them, or straighten them. He does
>not do this. He would arch the top of his back, which he does not do. He would
>not swivel, and it would not matter if he was shot on any side of the head. He
>would not be thrown back against the seat, and to the left.

	How do you know? Once again, you know little physiology, and 
	little about the goat film, and little about what animals do
	when shot. Yet, in spite of this you crusade on and on and on
	through subjects where you know, at best, little. 

	Tell me, O Wrightian one, why does the location of the bullet
	track *not* matter in the reaction one would expect from the
	goat film? I'd really, really, like to know.



                                |  
		              \ | /	 
                               \|/
_________________________   ---(0)---   ______________________________________
\__                      \___/~/|\~\___/                              _______/
  \__ mst4298@zeus.tamu.edu / / | \ \\ 	      Ambiguity is the      ______////
    \__ Mitchell S Todd    /    |    \\   Devil's tetherball     ______////
      \___________________/           \\____________________________////
         \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\/_____________\\\///////////////////////////
                           /////\\\\\\\\\\\    
                       	

Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk