Here is the problem with the 911 conspiracy theory's......

[William Seger]

112. WTF?

> you say that the bullet struck before the shutter opened, traveled through the skull and exited the head and then the shutter closed.

Say what? No, I have never said any such silly thing. I have repeatedly said that the bullet hit between 312 and 313 and was gone by 313, so the shutter speed is irrelevant.

> And if it is so that means most of the energy of the bullet was spent and if that were so then why the head only moves the small amount you say it did is a mystery

To be more accurate, the issue is that the bullet would have imparted momentum only while it was in contact with the head, and I claim that that was entirely before 313. The "small amount" of movement may be a mystery to you, but given that JFK's chin was almost in contact with his chest already, and given that bullets don't actually pack the massive amounts of momentum the way Hollywood movies depict them, then there is no mystery. (There's a Myth Busters episode where they show that even a 50 cal can only move a body a few inches with a direct hit.) That's actually another of the known problems with the theory that the "back and to the left" was caused by a front-right hit: The acceleration seen in the entire upper body requires more energy than the bullet could possible have delivered.

> When the bullet impacts the flesh and bone at 2500fps it imparts energy to the particles it encounters at almost that speed....so if the ejected material is 3 feet away you can figure the moment of impact....if that material is moving at 2000fps it will take x seconds to reach 3 feet...

WTF? Frame 313 shows ejecta at least 4 feet away, and even if it were traveling as fast as the bullet (as implausible as that is, but even if), then the bullet would also be at least 4 feet away, i.e. no longer capable of imparting any momentum to the head. What math and time line would satisfy you, if that's not obvious to you? (BTW, not that it actually matters, but if you're going to attempt any math, you could at least take the time look up the correct values for the muzzle velocity, exposure time, etc.)

> And by the way inertia is also part of the equation when you talk about the head movement, and if the head is at rest then it tends to stay at rest....and so you will not see an instantaneous movement of the head...

Momentum is transferred instantaneously, so the head would have started to accelerate at the very instant that the bullet started to decelerate. When we would first "see" it depends only on how closely we can look.

> ...which means the bullet must have struck even farther back in time to see the head move in 313.

"Even farther back in time" than your version of 313 being the instant of the hit, which you can't seem to justify with anything but imaginary physics? Sorry, I don't see that as a problem for the theory. But since you mention inertia, if inertia is such a problem for the theory that the forward head snap was caused by the bullet impact, then good luck coming up with a convincing alternate explanation for that snap, which was just coincidentally immediately before the hit. Not that you will ever get around to even attempting that, apparently, since you won't even acknowledge seeing it.

Which reminds me, you wanted to look at the frames after 313, and I showed you that they show an accelerating "back and to the left" for several frames. Do you have even an imaginary physics explanation for that yet?