From: david@cats.ucsc.edu (David Wright)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
Subject: Re: Neuro-Muscular Reaction
Date: 15 Apr 92 20:38:09 GMT
Article-I.D.: darkstar.33007
Organization: University of California, Santa Cruz


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...
|
|>| 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.

That is exactly what is so stupid about the WR-HSCA verison of events. Take the
head snap. First, the FBI reversed the frames in the Zapruder so that it would
look like Kennedy's head went forward in reaction to the shot. So did Dan
Rather, when mentioning the Zapruder film say his head snapped forward. No one
at that time said that a forward head snap would be caused by a shot from the
front. 

When the real Zapruder film was shown, they made up another explanation: the 
neuro muscular reaction. In other words, they simply make up as many unproven
theories to explain what would be ordinarly a common occurance: when you are
shot from behind, you are driven forward. 

When it was pointed out that Kennedy went to the *left* as well as back, the 
reaction was thought to result from Kennedy being turned to the left somewhat.
How stupid. 

The fact is that as evidence changed, the WR-HSCA just kept making more and
more absurd justifications for outlandish theories. Why did it do so? To
justify the circumstantial evidence found at the TSBD. That is the sole reason
why so much effort has gone into making silly theories about head snaps and
magic bullet theories and ignoring witness testimony from a shot at the knoll.
(that hit, in the case of the HSCA)

|	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.

|>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 movemen|>whatsoever.
|
|	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.
It seems clear you are not aggreeing with this definition and using the neuro
muscular reaction to explain any movement whatsoever.  

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

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

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.

|	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.	
	
The front legs go upward and outward. Presumably they do in fact stiffen, since
the legs go upward and outward. They are presumably fully "extended" and not
bent, as Kennedy's arms remained.

|>|	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.

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.

|>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. 	

I think this is irrelevent. If the head bone is connected to the neck bone and
so on, and the head and body move to the rear of the seat, and the motion of
the bullet from the front caused this, then you can say that the head moves 
the body back. My description is a theoretical interpretation of agreed on
facts which you disagree with. 

|>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.
-- 
   |^^^^^^|      _______________________________________________________
   |      |      |                                                     | 
   |      |      | "Be Prepared for Enormous Fustrations"              |
   | (o)(o)      O         --Kreps, A course in Micro theory, p. 352   | 
   @      _)    o|_____________________________________________________|  
    |  ____\ o o
    |     /   
   /     \                              All comments  are mine---(David Wright)