Posted on 11/21/2002 10:52:30 PM PST by mlo
I'm half-thinking of trying the movie "JFK", but I have no idea if they use the real Zapruder film in it, or some re-creation.
Fortunately for all of us, it's not beyond the ability of everyone to explain. Probably the most well-known attempt to explain the motion of targets like that was Luis Alvarez's paper on the so-called "jet effect" - I don't have it handy, but it should be readily available if you do a Google search. In a nutshell, it turns out that a small, high-velocity projectile like a bullet doesn't actually impart that much of its force to a target like a head - it sort of slides in, passes through the (mostly water) brain, and slides back out. And as it's passing through the brain, it "pulls" brain matter along with it, drawing it out behind it, which creates a "jet effect" - the brain matter flowing out of the exit wound acts like a little jet, and causes force to be applied in the direction of the bullet.
It's totally counterintuitive to what you might guess would happen, especially if you didn't have a lot of experience shooting things like that. But it's a nice theory, because it's easily testable by anyone with access to a reasonably powerful rifle and a range. Next time you go shooting, stop by the supermarket and pick yourself up a nice, head-sized melon like a canteloupe, and some ordinary plastic packing tape. Wrap the tape around the melon in a good, skull-like thickness, put it on platform such that it will easily fall in any direction, and fire away. It'll fall towards the shooter every single time.
And if you really want to recreate the assassination, just put a second melon, wearing a pink pillbox hat, next to the first one ;)
Ouch....LOL....
Thanks for the post.
More seriously, between the jet effect and the reflex action that you get from any sudden, serious brain injury, the movement of the body in the Zapruder film is easily understandable without resorting to theories about multiple shooters.
I've heard that the accoustics evidence was challenged and not accepted by some, but was it actually invalidated? If so, what was the reason?
In accordance with standard Marine procedures, Oswald received extensive training in marksmanship. During the first week of an intensive 8-week training period he received instruction in sighting, aiming, and manipulation of the trigger. He went through a series of exercises called dry firing where he assumed all positions which would later be used in the qualification course. After familiarization with live ammunition in The .22 rifle and .22 pistol, Oswald, like all Marine recruits, received training on the rifle range at distances up to 500 yards, firing 50 rounds each day for five days.
Following that training, Oswald was tested in December of 1956, and obtained a score of 212, which was 2 points above the minimum for qualifications as a "sharpshooter" in a scale of marksmansharp-shooterexpert. In May of 1959, on another range, Oswald scored 191, which was 1 point over the minimum for ranking as a "marksman." The Marine Corps records maintained on Oswald further show that he had fired and was familiar with the Browning Automatic rifle, .45 caliber pistol, and 12-gage riot gun.
Based on the general Marine Corps ratings, Lt. Col. A. G. Folsom, Jr., head, Records Branch, Personnel Department, Headquarters US. Marine Corps, evaluated the sharpshooter qualification as a "fairly good shot" and a low marksman rating as a "rather poor shot." When asked to explain the different scores achieved by Oswald on the two occasions when he fired for record, Major Anderson said:
...when he fired that [212] he had just completed a very intensive preliminary training period. He had the services of an experienced highly trained coach. He had high motivation. He had presumably a good to excellent rifle and good ammunition. We have nothing here to show under what conditions the B course was fired. It might well have been a bad day for firing the riflewindy, rainy, dark. There is little probability that he had a good, expert coach, and he probably didn't have as high a motivation because he was no longer in recruit training and under the care of the drill instructor. There is some possibility that the rifle he was firing might not have been as good a rifle as the rifle that he was firing in his A course firing, because [he] may well have carried this rifle for quite some time, and it got banged around in normal usage.
Major Anderson concluded:
I would say that as compared to other Marines receiving the same type of training, that Oswald was a good shot, somewhat better than or equal tobetter than the average let us say. As compared to a civilian who had not received this intensive training, he would be considered as a good to excellent shot.
When Sergeant Zahm was asked whether Oswald's Marine Corps training would have made it easier to operate a rifle with a four-power scope, he replied:
Based on that training, his basic knowledge in sight manipulation and trigger squeeze and what not, I would say that he would be capable of sighting that rifle in well, firing it, with 10 rounds.
After reviewing Oswald's marksmanship scores, Sergeant Zahm concluded:
I would say in the Marine Corps he is a good shot, slightly above average, and as compared to the average male of his age throughout the civilian, throughout the United States, that he is an excellent shot.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.