From: mst4298@rigel.tamu.edu (Mitchell S Todd)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
Subject: Re: Neuro-Muscular Reaction
Date: 14 Apr 92 20:33:00 GMT
Organization: Incontinental Blather, Inc
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

(David Wright) writes...
>mst4298@zeus.tamu.edu (Mitchell S Todd) writes:
>|david@cats.ucsc.edu (David Wright) writes...

>| Such a definition requries:

>|>1) An arching of the back

>|       ...To begin with, JFK's clothing would make it difficult if not 
>|	impossible, to see the arching of his back in the Z-film,

>Good. A theory that cannot be disproven. I don't see any arching, it was
>possible to see it.

	Welcome to the world of the assassiantion, where theories-
	that-can't-be-disproven-on-the-basis-of-evidence are common
	as water.

	Now, one of the things that the theory predicts is that the 
	neuro-muscular reaction will cause JFK's upper body to 
	move backwards. This happens. The theory also predicts that
	JFK's neck will arch backwards, and his head will move
	backwards.

	It might be possible to see any arching in JFK's back in the
	film, but it would probably take a pristine copy of the
	z-film and some specialized analysis to see it. Unfortuantately,
	things like coats and dress shirts don't adhere to the body,
	showing off exact contours and posture. To use a simple analogy:

		     Normally              With Suit

			\			|\
			|			||
			|			||
			/ 			|/

	The suit just covers up the arching.

	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?


>|>2) A violent stiffening of the limbs

>|	As I've explained before, you're extrapolating the exact *motions*
>|	of a four-legged animal to a two legged animal. The real key is
>|	the functional reactions.

>You now say that the definition given by three professional bodies is not
>correct, that there does not have to be a stiffening of the limbs. It seems
>clear you are using a definition that simply corrosponds to nearly any movement
>whatsoever.

	Once again, Mr Wright, you show that you have seeming little
	knowledge of (or interest in) physiology, and that you seem to
	loath considering any definition of the verb "stiffen".

	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.
	
	1) what, exactly is this "stiffening" you refer to? What
	   does it look like?

	2) what causes this "stiffening"? (and, please, I would like 
	   fairly detailed answer, though you most certainly don't
	   have to get anywhere near Na+/K+ pumps and the like.) 

	3) how long does this "stiffening" last?
	
	4) (for reasons discussed below) What source(s) are you relying
	   on for your description of the goat test?

	In a nutshell, what, exactly, do you think the NMR theory
	entails/predicts?


>Evidence was just given by a poster concerning animals he shot and
>the types of nerospasms he observed, or thought to observe.

	Once, several years ago, a friend of mine spotted a white tail,
	put the poor creature's head in his sights, and squeezed off
	a round. The bullet, as later investigation revealed, hit the
	hapless creature in the skull, in the braincase, to be exact.
	Oddly enough, though the animal was hit in the side of the head,
	it pulled its head up, then toppled over forwards, dead. Funny that.
	I beleive I've mentioned this incident before, though briefly.


		
>They are consistent with the other definitions I have given, including the 
>fact that the stiffening or arching of limbs takes some amount of time and
>so forth. 

	According to Sturdicvan'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.
	Interestingly enough, the HSCA describes the goat test this
	way:

		"[.04 seconds after the bullet's impact] ...the legs
	         go out, under the influence of the powerful muscles
		 of the back legs, the front legs go upward and outward,
		 that back arches..."

	Nary a stiffening in sight.	
	


>|	body moves almost as a unit, rather than  the head moving back
>|	and taking the body with it.

>That is not the description of the motions given by a poster who claims he has
>a good copy of the film.

	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.


>Nor is this description of people who have seen the
>original copies, and their observations are always that the head moves back and
>to the left, and that the body slams into the rear of the car seat, that is the
>body moves as well. There is, I think, a nearly universal consensus that this
>is how the body moved.

	Well, I think you do have the consensus view. I note again that it
	does not claim that JFK's head pulled his body up and back. 	



>Nor would your spinning top theory explain Kennedy's body moving back and to 
>the left.

	What "spinning top" theory?


>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.

	You really should read up on your physiology. No, wait. Where
	are these 'extending muscles'? I 'd like to know. I really
	would.

	Actually, NO muscles 'extend'. That's why muscles tend to come
	in pairings (biceps/triceps, quadreiceps/hamstring, etc)

	Mr Wright continues to call the NMR (or at least my explanation
	of it ludicrous, yet he seems to know little or nothing about the
	physiology involved, or human physiology in general (refer also
	to the "six-inch tracheotomy incision" in an earlier post). Mr
	Wright seems to have little idea of what the theory predicts;
	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. And this stiffness
	business...it seems that Wright's version of events is quite
	dependent requires a vice-like death grip on this single word
	(and one one particular usage of it).

	Again, Mr Wright, what is your conception of the NMR theory?
	What would we expect to see in the Z-film, and for how long? 
	And what are those three sources of yours?
                                |  
		              \ | /	 
                               \|/
_________________________   ---(0)---   ______________________________________
\__                      \___/~/|\~\___/                              _______/
  \__ mst4298@zeus.tamu.edu / / | \ \\ 	      Ambiguity is the      ______////
    \__ Mitchell S Todd    /    |    \\   Devil's tetherball     ______////
      \___________________/           \\____________________________////
         \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\/_____________\\\///////////////////////////
                           /////\\\\\\\\\\\