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

[William Seger]

126. Hopeless

Bullshit. The section you're quoting says nothing whatsoever about any "delay due to inertia." The "burst" that it is talking about is the bursting of matter out of the skull to produce the "jet effect" that Alverez first proposed. And by the way, he is giving you an answer to your question about why the head didn't continue going forward: The "jet effect" was strong enough to reverse that motion. In the section you quoted, all he is saying is that the sooner that force began to take effect, after the effect of the initial contact, the less time the head had to move forward. Clearly, he is not giving any support whatsoever to your imaginary physics that tell you there wasn't enough time for the amount of motion recorded in 312-313.

> 313 is visually consistent with a shot from the front.

But a shot from the front is not consistent with the forward movement since 312. Frame 313 is visually consistent with a shot from the rear and a shot from the rear easily explains the forward motion.

> The backward movement is consistent with a shot from the front.

No, it isn't and I've repeatedly given you two reasons why, which you have repeatedly refused to even acknowledge, much less refute: The backward movement comes two frames after the hit, and it shows acceleration that can't be explained by a millisecond contact with a bullet.

> Many witnesses say the shot came from the front

Many witnesses say they heard a shot from the grassy knoll, but I have what I think is an interesting observation about that in this post. It's an observation I haven't seen anyone else make.

> And all of that is the larger evidence...yours is the smaller and really minute in comparison to all the evidence for a shot from the front...

You are in serious denial. The actual evidence simply does not support the conclusions you want to draw. Regardless of how "small" the details are, you cannot defend your contention that what's actually seen in the Zapruder film was caused by a hit from the front, and you have neither refuted the reasoning that says 313 shows a shot from the rear nor offered any alternative explanation for that forward snap. And yet you have the chutzpah to say this:

> But again this is how the debunkers work...they pick a small thing and make it the sole thing they judge on and once they have an explanation for the small thing they will ignore all other evidence no matter how much of it there is...that is not how fair judgment works.

Hopeless.