Here's a correction OP for 50 Reasons, 50 Years OP

[arguille]

157. reply to #155

"Wm Seger" - you have dug yourself a ditch and now you are standing in it. Anyone following this thread is at this moment saying to themselves "oh look. Seger's standing in a ditch."

"Fiester … seems to be oblivious to the fact that there was a 2.5" forward head-snap that needs to be explained"

I have told you several times that Fiester specifically addresses the "forward head snap", and in fact much of Chapter Seven of her book is about it. Your stubborness on this issue is baffling because you are clearly wrong, just as you are clearly wrong on the definition of the appeal to authority fallacy. Being occasionally wrong is part of being human, but insisting on being wrong - as you are doing - is cause for concern. Seger, I am concerned for you, standing in that ditch ...

"You have presented nothing whatsoever that addresses that forward snap…"

Except Chapter Seven of Fiester's book, in which she quotes such people as Bernd Karger who, in his publication "Forensic Ballistics" says: "When the bullet strikes the skull, the velocity abruptly slows, thereby transferring kinetic energy to the target. This primary transfer of energy causes the target to move minutely into the force and against the line of fire, quickly followed by movement with the force, and in the continued direction, of the moving bullet (Karger, 2008).

You have rejected this analysis based, apparently, on a dispute with the term "move minutely" - although it was also stated that this movement was conditioned on the velocity of the striking bullet and that high velocity rounds cause a more pronounced movement. If you wish to dispute contemporary ballistic science, go ahead - but you'll need a little more than a frame capture from a Discovery Channel show.

"the videos above prove that she doesn't know what the hell she's talking about…"

Really? A red object resembling the cap of a football helmet, sitting atop a rigid stick, receiving a gunshot which in no way replicates the conditions seen in the Zapruder film? Why don't you let your GIF run another few frames so we can see the torso slam violently back into the seat? Oh right, because that didn't happen. Just like the entire right side of JFK's head did not explode as your "proof" has it.

"I believe the most plausible explanation for the back-and-to-the-left movement is a muscle spasm, but it isn't really necessary to identify the cause to conclusively say that it was not caused by momentum from the bullet…"

Except your understanding of the physics involved requires refuting or denying contemporary ballistic science, which has established that your conclusive statements are simply wrong. You can sneer at Fiester all you want, but her observations are backed up by papers written by recognized authorities in these matters. Fiester's analysis is also supported by blood spatter characteristics as seen in the Zapruder film, and it explains the rapid movement back into the seat.

Your analysis is based on a paper written by someone with no specialized expertise in ballistic science, backed up by several frames from a TV show which features a red cap sitting on a stick with results quite unlike anything seen in the JFK evidence, and which can only offer, if anything, a limited and constrained explanation of one facet of the phenomenon under discussion.

In light of that, your need to pound your chest and stamp your feet is understandable - but you are still standing in the ditch.