From: schuck@fraser.sfu.ca (Bruce Jonathan Schuck)
Subject: Re: mortal error
Reply-To: Bruce_Schuck@sfu.ca
Organization: Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C., Canada
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 22:35:43 GMT

karn@servo.qualcomm.com (Phil Karn) writes:

>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.

Gee...I guess I should quit reading the HSCA report because thats
where their expert talks about backsplash.

Who are your experts and why do they disagree with the HSCA experts?


>>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. 

But not soon enough to have any effect.

>And there certainly
>*was* a wind -- it was 12 mph relative to the limo, if that was in fact
>the limo's speed.

It was 12 mph, but that would have been 12mph backwards after any
material emerged from the calm caused by the windshield. The *wind*
would not have been to JFK's left, which is where the Harper fragment
went and where the motorcycle cops were sprayed. The cops to JFK's
right were *not* sprayed.

>>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. 

Spasm? There is no *visible* spasm.

>Consider also the "jet effect" of all that brain tissue
>and blood being expelled from the side of JFK's head.

Nice try. The trouble with that is that there is *no* evidence of a
jet effect having the ability to move unattattatched skulls , let
alone skulls attatched to necks and bodies. On top of that, Oswald was
supposedly to JFK's rear and right. If the jet effect existed it would
have moved JFK towards Oswald and left an ugly splash of blood and
brain tissue on the windshield or the SS man in the front seat
[Connally was out of the way in Nellies lap] Neither happened.

>>>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.

You are the one claiming it would have an effect on JFK's body
motions. Now you are saying there is no evidence of what this effect
would be. Ha.

>>>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. 

No they didn't. They only showed there were voices and sounds occuring
at the time of the gunshots that shouldn't have been there at that
time. Since there is evidence that cross-talk can occur and the
dictablet was a copy, it is still very much open when the voices were
recorded. Plus, one of the channels wwas recorded on a voice activated
dictablet, further obscuring the timing of the voices.

What is clear is that the gunshot sounds recorded were gunshots. If
the NAS is claiming that gunshots occurred in Dealey Plaza 1 minute
later than the JFK assassination, could you please explain who fired
those shots? SInce there were only one set of documented shots fired
in Dealey Plaza that day, the shots recored have to be the ones that
killed JFK.

>Since these supposed gunshots were the ONLY basis for
>the House committee's conclusion that there was a probable conspiracy,

I certainly think that much of the evidence presented to the HSCA
pointed towards a conspiracy, but the acoustical evidence is certainly
strong enough to prove a shot from the grassy knoll took place.

>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.

The mandate of the HSCA was to re-examine the evidence. When they
actually found new evidence that evidence pointed towards multiple
shooters. If the HSCA mandate had been to reinvestigate the
assassination, there would surely been more evidence pointing towards
a conspiracy.
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk