From: mst4298@rigel.tamu.edu (Mitchell S Todd)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
Subject: Re: Neuro-Muscular Reaction (was Re: Retrograde Recoil)
Keywords: Don't extrapolate goats *directly* into humans
Date: 9 Apr 92 16:16:00 GMT
Organization: Incontinental Blather, Inc
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

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

Dancin' Dave Wright:

>||There is very little to no evidence that a neuromuscular response would cause
>||Kennedy's head to snap back, away from the knoll area. These type of reactions
>||are accompanied by a "violent straightening and stiffening" of the limbs.
>||(Clark Panel). This was confirmed by evidence from the HSCA, who also used the
>||same language to explain the backward headsnap. The latter used a film of a
>||goat being shot in the head, the goat arched it's back and stiffend it's 
>||legs. Lattimer also brings up goats, with presumably the same conditions.
>||Clearly no such movement could be seen in the Zapruder films.
[...]

>|	The goat tests demonstrate that a head shot can and will cause
>|	a massive neuromuscular reaction. Since the gross anatomy of 
>|	goats and humans differ markedly in some key respects, most
>|	importantly, goats are quadrupeds and JFK was a biped.

>|	For one thing, goats arch their backs towards the dorsal (or
>|	posterior), while human backs arch towards the anterior. When
>|	the goat arches its back, gravity holds both ends of the 
>|	goat down. When a biped suddenly arches its back, there is
>|	nothing to prevent this motion from moving the upper end 
>|	of the creature backwards (in fact, the muscles of the back
>|	are there to hold the biped up).

>An arch movement is not really shown on the Zapruder film. The head snaps back
>, and pulls the body up, and at the same time spinning to the left. 

	JFK was wearing a back brace, a corset, a tight wrapping of bandages, 
	and otherwise was accoutered like The Mummy Who Wanted to Keep That
 	Girlish Figure. This arrangement was designed to keep his back
	(from just below his shoulder blades to his hips, I gather from 
	descriptions) from moving at all. It would have kept the actual
	*arching* of his back to a minimum. Furthermore, Kennedy was
	wearing a suit, which would obscure any arching motion.
	Finally, The Z-film isn't exactly the highest-resolution
	celluloid --especially considering the poor quality of almost all
	the copies of the film. Nor does it feature a nice, convenient closeup
	of JFK between 312 and 350. Given this, the arch would likely be quite
	hard to detect.

	A neuro-muscular reaction of the type being discussed would
	cause the head to snap backwards in the way seen in the Z-film.
	The neck is going to arch backwards as the rest of the spine.
	
	Since the bullet passage affected the right side of the brain
	more than the left (obviously!), then it should follow that
	any resulting reflex action would be stronger on the left
	side of the body, ie, the muscles on the left side of the
	body would be actuated more strongly than their counterparts
	of the right. This would result in the leftward "spinning"
	of the late President.   


>|       ........As for stiffening of the limbs, since the goat's
>|	limbs are already extended, the neuromuscular reaction causes them to
>|	stiffen;

>The phrase "stiffening of the limbs" I take to mean precisely that, wheather it
>applies to goats or any other animal. Do you have any evidence that such a
>reaction is false?

	If you do, then you might want to learn more physiology. A *transient*
	neuro-muscular reaction isn't going to cause a rigor mortis-like
	stiffening. I take it, from your sources description, and a
	few quick references of physiology, that the goat's limbs suddenly
	stiffened as in "tensed up". After the massive wave of bullet-caused
	neural impulses subsided, there would be little or no activity
	to keep the muscle fibers contracting, unless the animal
	voluntarily moved something. 
	 
	Since extensor muscles are stronger than flexors, a
	sudden shower of essentially random neural impulses is generlly
	going to cause whatever limb to extend. If the limb is already
	extended, then the limb will appear to stiffen suddenly. As a
 	point of reference, somone in a "stiff" posture is using the
	extensor muscles to do so.  


> the Z-film clearly shows JFKs right arm moving backwards
>|	and extending, though the arm never fully extends. Since JFK's
>|	arm is not extended to begin with, a NM reaction will cause 
>|	it to extend.

>I am not sure what you are saying. The arms don't stiffen. I suppose you are
>repeating your claim above, that such a muscular spasm does not really
>stiffen limbs. I have quoted three sources for stiffening of the limbs. It
>will be interesting to find to look at your contrary evidence.

	You may be the victim if poor word choice in your sources. If you
	shoot a jackrabbit through the head, they often respond by jumping	
	straight up in the air (this effect seems independent of the
	bullet caliber, from .177 to .243 in my experience). This occurs
	because of the same type of neuro-muscular reaction seen in JFK
	and the goats. In the rabbits' case, their restng posture is
	sort of coiled --the hind legs stay in a more or less flexed postion.
	When the bullet strikes, the resulting reaction causes the rear
	legs to extend, and the bunny jumps.

	In the goat's case, his legs are already extended (from what I
	gather, the shooting tests are conducted with the goat just
	standing there). The massive spasm can't cause the legs to
	extend further, so the appearance is of the muscles stiffening
	without much movement.

        As a demostration of this, stand straight
	up and then suddenly flex (hard) the quadriceps muscles in your thigh.
	You're not going to go very far. Observers will note, hoewver,
	that you're legs suddenly got stiff. Now, allow your knees to
	bend a bit, and repeat the experiment. You're going to move,	
	if not jump.

	JFK's arm was in a flexed position. It would have to extend before
	it stiffened. What the Z-film shows is a sort of extension, as
	would be expected. It's a little more complicated than this, of
	course, but that is the gist of it. 	
	

	One more thing: I don't recall you ever quoting sources. What
	sources are you quoting from ($5 is on Kurtz being one)?
                                |  	
		              \ | /	 
                               \|/
_________________________   ---(0)---   ______________________________________
\__                      \___/~/|\~\___/                              _______/
  \__ mst4298@zeus.tamu.edu / / | \ \\ 	      Ambiguity is the      ______////
    \__ Mitchell S Todd    /    |    \\   Devil's tetherball     ______////
      \___________________/           \\____________________________////
         \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\/_____________\\\///////////////////////////
                           /////\\\\\\\\\\\    
                       	

From: hypes@hpdmd48.boi.hp.com (Gary Hypes)
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 1992 15:23:42 GMT
Subject: Re: DR. Crawford Speaks
Organization: Hewlett Packard - Boise, ID