Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Creative Speculation
In reply to the discussion: Here's a correction OP for 50 Reasons, 50 Years OP [View all]William Seger
(11,619 posts)163. "Ballistics & Forensic Experts on the JFK Head Shot"
Compiled by Joel Grant
Alfred G. Olivier, DVM to Rockefeller Commission:
Dr. Werner Spitz to the Rockefeller Commission:
Alfred G. Olivier, DVM to Rockefeller Commission:
Q. What is your opinion, based upon the expertise that you have acquired in these 18 years at the Edgewood Arsenal in wound ballistics, with respect to the question of the direction from which the bullet came that struck the President in the head?
A. Well, the President in 313, the head appears to have moved slightly forward from the previous frame. Now, I say appears, because unless you measured this precisely you don't know. But it appears to have moved slightly.
And this would not be inconsistent with the momentum of the bullet being transferred to the head. Whereas I said a bullet cannot knock a person down or move a body in any violent way, it could conceivably move the head a little bit. We fired at human skulls filled with gelatin sitting on the table, and they would roll off the table. And this apparent side movement of the head is in the correct direction if the bullet came from the book depository.
Q. That is, from the rear of the President?
A. From the rear of the President.
Q. Now, then, what can you tell us with respect to the subsequent action of the President's head and body after that initial apparent slight movement forward?
A. There could be two reasons for it. One reason, there is a jet of blood and brain material from the head, some bone seemed to fly up in the air, but the bulk of it appears to fly forward and maybe slightly to the right. This gives an indication that that is possibly in the direction that the bullet exited from the skull.
Q. Now, was there any movement of the President's head and body associated with that?
A. That material going in that direction would have a tendency as a result of this jet effect to push the head in the other direction. This was demonstrated by Louis Alvarez in California several years ago by shooting melons. When you could get a jet of honeydew melon going out the front, the melon would roll toward the gun, showing that there is some movement from this jet effect.
Q. That also a moderate movement?
A. That would be moderate, yes. Now, most of the movement you see of the President moving backwards and his body moving sideward I believe is a neuromuscular reaction.
A. Well, the President in 313, the head appears to have moved slightly forward from the previous frame. Now, I say appears, because unless you measured this precisely you don't know. But it appears to have moved slightly.
And this would not be inconsistent with the momentum of the bullet being transferred to the head. Whereas I said a bullet cannot knock a person down or move a body in any violent way, it could conceivably move the head a little bit. We fired at human skulls filled with gelatin sitting on the table, and they would roll off the table. And this apparent side movement of the head is in the correct direction if the bullet came from the book depository.
Q. That is, from the rear of the President?
A. From the rear of the President.
Q. Now, then, what can you tell us with respect to the subsequent action of the President's head and body after that initial apparent slight movement forward?
A. There could be two reasons for it. One reason, there is a jet of blood and brain material from the head, some bone seemed to fly up in the air, but the bulk of it appears to fly forward and maybe slightly to the right. This gives an indication that that is possibly in the direction that the bullet exited from the skull.
Q. Now, was there any movement of the President's head and body associated with that?
A. That material going in that direction would have a tendency as a result of this jet effect to push the head in the other direction. This was demonstrated by Louis Alvarez in California several years ago by shooting melons. When you could get a jet of honeydew melon going out the front, the melon would roll toward the gun, showing that there is some movement from this jet effect.
Q. That also a moderate movement?
A. That would be moderate, yes. Now, most of the movement you see of the President moving backwards and his body moving sideward I believe is a neuromuscular reaction.
Dr. Werner Spitz to the Rockefeller Commission:
Q. May I ask this, then. Do you have any opinion, based upon your observing several times the Zapruder motion picture film, as to whether that film indicates that the President was struck by a bullet fired from the right front of the Presidential car?
A. No, the President was struck from the back both times, the one in the back and the one in the head definitely indicated that.
A. No, the President was struck from the back both times, the one in the back and the one in the head definitely indicated that.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
168 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations

Thanks for posting, I watched the first 9 videos from the links in your earlier posts.
eomer
Feb 2013
#1
Episode Three: Bill Simpich speculates that Oswald was part of "false defector" program
William Seger
Feb 2013
#13
Episode Five: John Armstrong again, speculating about "two Oswalds" again
William Seger
Feb 2013
#16
On posting the videos as they come out each week, and on your being blocked for it...
eomer
Feb 2013
#7
I followed the discussion and I thank you for having, by far, the more reasonable approach.
NYC_SKP
Feb 2013
#14
It would appear that the poll speaks for who's more interested in the videos...
MrMickeysMom
Mar 2013
#19
Clicking on your posts, hoping that maybe this time there will be something
William Seger
Apr 2013
#86
"...but the single-bullet theory remains the best explanation of the facts."
MrMickeysMom
Apr 2013
#87
c) Seger dismisses information on Oswald's history and background as unsubstantial
William Seger
Mar 2013
#30
The minutes of the first Commission meeting, and I provided the link (n/t)
William Seger
Apr 2013
#81
Baloney. It's not a "rhetorical device" to demand FACT-based DEDUCTIVE reasoning
William Seger
Mar 2013
#56
I have only watched the first first video and half of the second, so they might address that point.
ZombieHorde
Apr 2013
#103
Well, I suppose the earth being round remains a point of contention since some believe it is flat...
zappaman
Apr 2013
#111
In other words, Fiester has NO CLUE the 2.5" forward head-snap even happened
William Seger
Apr 2013
#123
What's refuted is your bizarre interpretation of "contemporary ballistic science"
William Seger
Apr 2013
#143
I really don't understand why you keep responding if that's the best you can do
William Seger
Apr 2013
#155