ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Conspiracies and Conspiracy Theories
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags !MOD BOX WARNING!

Reply
Old Yesterday, 04:10 PM   #3641
RoboTimbo
Hostile Nanobacon
 
RoboTimbo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Perfection, NV
Posts: 28,884
Originally Posted by manifesto View Post
No one is disputing shots from behind. The issue at hand still is if shots were fired from in front. The evidence of this are overwhelming non-existent.
Fixed that for you .
RoboTimbo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 04:13 PM   #3642
HSienzant
Illuminator
 
HSienzant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 4,039
From a review of the book "Pseudoscience: The Conspiracy Against Science".
https://www.skeptic.com/reading_room...cience-review/

== QUOTE ==
In the final chapter, “Truth Shall Prevail,” Paul Joseph Barnett and James C. Kaufman stress that scientists are searching for the truth, sometimes at great personal cost. “Humility, or a reticence to speak in absolutes, is the single greatest distinction between the sides of pseudoscience and evidence-based science.” They add, “Responding to pseudoscience takes its toll. Scientists get frustrated when they have to repeat facts, refute the same fallacious arguments, and end up in defensive positions because their detractors are not bound to the same rules. Like nuisance lawsuits, pseudoscience rarely plays to win; the goal is simply not to lose. Getting people to doubt science counts as a victory.”
== UNQUOTE ==

Sounds a lot like CT posters, doesn't it?
__________________
"Looks like we're really in nut country now, Toto."

Last edited by HSienzant; Yesterday at 04:17 PM.
HSienzant is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 04:20 PM   #3643
HSienzant
Illuminator
 
HSienzant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 4,039
Manifesto? Your response?

Originally Posted by HSienzant View Post
Ok. We agree, I think, that puts the knoll witnesses at 50, not 52. The Depository witnesses are still at 48.

Let's look at James Crawford's testimony, now, shall we?

He is counted as a knoll witness in your listing:

https://www.history-matters.com/anal...216Witness.htm
Crawford, James _________ KNOLL

But here's his actual testimony. He names the Depository as the source of the shots and even pointed that out within seconds to his co-worker. He was diagonally across the street from the Depository, at the SE corner of the Elm & Houston intersection when he described what happened thereafter:
Mr. BALL - Did you have a good view at that point of the south exposure of the Texas School Book Depository?
Mr. CRAWFORD - I had a very good angle.
Mr. BALL - Did you see the Presidents car pass?
Mr. CRAWFORD - I did.
Mr. BALL - And just tell me in your own words what you observed after that?
Mr. CRAWFORD - As I observed the parade, I believe there was a car leading the President's car, followed by the President's car and followed, I suppose, by the Vice Presiden't car and, in turn, by the secret Service in a yellow closed sedan. The doors of the Sedan were open. It was after the Secret Service Sedan had gone around the corner that I heard the first report and at that time I thought it was a backfire of a car but, in analyzing the situation, it could not have been a backfire of a car because it would have had to have been the President's car or some car in the cavalcade there. The second shot followed some seconds, a little time elapsed after the first one, and followed very quickly by the third one. I could not see the President's car -
Mr. BALL - At that time?
Mr. CRAWFORD - That's right; I couldn't even see the secret Service car, at least wasn't looking for it. As the report from the third shot sounded, I looked up. I had previously looked around to see if there was somebody shooting firecrackers to see if I could see a puff of smoke, and after I decided it wasn't a backfire from an automobile and as the third report sounded, I looked up and from the far east corner of the sixth floor I saw a movement. It was just barely a glimpse.
Mr. BALL - Which window?
Mr. CRAWFORD - That would be the far east window -
Mr. BALL - On the -
Mr. CRAWFORD - On the sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository. I turned to Miss Mitchell and made the statement that if those were shots they came from that window. That was based mainly on the fact of the quick movement observed in the window right at the conclusion of the report.
Mr. BALL - Could you give me any better description than just a movement? Could you use any other words to describe what you saw by way of color or size of what you saw moving?
Mr. CRAWFORD - If I were asked to describe it, I would say that it was a profile, somewhat from the waist up, but it was very quick movement and rather indistinct and it was very light colored. It was either light colored or it was a reflection from the sun. When the gun was found, or when a gun was found, I asked the question if it was white, simply because if it was a gun I saw, then it was either white or it was reflecting the sn so it would appear white or light colored.
...
Mr. BALL - Before I ask you about your [FBI] report, did you have any impression as to the source of the sound, from what direction the sound came, the sound of the explosions?
Mr. CRAWFORD - Yes; I do. As I mentioned before, the sound, I thought it was a backfire in the cavalcade from down the hill, down the hill toward the underpass.
Mr. BALL - You mean west on Elm?
Mr. CRAWFORD - Yes, and that was a little confusing and in analyzing it later, evidently the report I heard, and probably a lot of other people, the officers or the FBI, it evidently was a sound that was reflected by the underpass and therefore came back. It did not sound to me, ever, as I remember, the high-powered rifle sounding. It was not a sharp crack.
Mr. BALL - What caused you to look up at the Texas School Book Depository Building?
Mr. CRAWFORD - The sound had to be coming from somewhere; the noise was being made at some place, so I didn't see anyone shooting firecrackers or anything else and I thought "this idiot surely shouldn't do such a thing," but if they were, where were they, and if they were shots, where were they coming from, and that caused me to search the whole area on Houston Street and in front of the Texas Depository on Elm Street and then up and that's how I happened to be looking up at the time, rather than observing things in the street, probably.
Mr. BALL - Did you ever see any smoke?
Mr. CRAWFORD - No, sir; I did not.
Mr. BALL - In your remark to Mary Ann Mitchell, did you say "If those were shots, they came from that window"?
Mr. CRAWFORD - Yes.
Mr. BALL - That is what you reported to the FBI agent, also?
Mr. CRAWFORD - Yes, I suppose; at the time, I was still not absolutely sure they were shots and that's why I said if they were shots. I was basing that, I am sure I was basing that mainly on the fact of this quick movement that I observed. In other words, If I were firing the shots, I would have jumped back immediately at the conclusion of them.
Mr. BALL - Later on, did you go back in the street and talk to someone?
Mr. CRAWFORD - Yes.
Mr. BALL - Did you talk to a deputy sheriff?
Mr. CRAWFORD - Allen Swett [sic - Allan Sweatt].
Mr. BALL - What did you tell him?
Mr. CRAWFORD - I told him to have the men search the boxes directly behind this window that was open on the sixth floor - the window in the far east corner.
Mary Ann Mitchell affirmed his statement about what he said in her presence:
Mr. BALL - Tell me in your own words what you noticed and what you heard after the President's car passed; what did you see and what did you hear?
Miss MITCHELL - Well, The President's car passed and, of course I watched it as long as I could see it but, as I remember, immediately behind it was a car full of men with the top down and quite a few of them were standing and I assumed they were Secret Service men, so after the car turned the corner and started down the hill, I couldn't see over the heads of the standing men for very long, so then I turned back to watch the other people in the caravan, whatever you call it, and probably about the time the car in which Senator Yarborough was riding had just passed, I heard some reports. The first one - there were three - the second and the third being closer together than the first and second and probably on the first one my thought was that it was a firecracker and I thought on the second one I thought that some police officer was after somebody that wasn't doing right and by the third report Jim Crawford had said the shots came from the building and as I looked up there then we realized that if the sots were coming from that building there was bound to have been somebody shooting at the people in the cars.
Mr. BALL - You heard Jim Crawford say something about if they were shots - what were his words exactly?
Miss MITCHELL - Well, I'm not sure that he said - I think he just said, "Those shots came from that building," just assuming that everybody could have figured out by then that they were shots.
Mr. BALL - Did you look at the building?
Miss MITCHELL - Yes; I did.
Mr. BALL - Did you see anybody in any of the windows?
Miss MITCHELL - I don't remember. I understand there were some porters that were leaning out of the fifth floor windows but I don't remember whether I saw them or not. I know where I thought he was pointing and where I was looking I couldn't see anybody so I never was sure which window he thought he was pointing to.

I submit James Crawford is about as far from a knoll witness as you can possibly get. His first impression was a backfire from the motorcade, but by the third report, he had isolated the sounds as coming from the Depository across the street, and specifically from the sixth floor southeast corner window. He was confident enough in this at that time that he reported this immediately to his coworker, Mary Ann Mitchell, standing beside him. He then reported the TSBD's sixth floor SE corner window as the source of the shots to Deputy Sheriff Allan Sweatt.

I will tell you I am very comfortable calling him a Depository witness, not a knoll witness. Your source claims he's a knoll witness. Why? Apparently because he heard hoofbeats and thought horses, not zebras. Or actually, thought "backfire" at the first report and not "assassination attempt".

And I will point out that if he's a Depository witness, not a knoll witness, then we need to increase the Depository witnesses by one to 49, and decrease the knoll witnesses by one to 49 (we previously agreed Davis and Kounos were not knoll witnesses).

So that makes the count 49 to 49. Right?

Hank
__________________
"Looks like we're really in nut country now, Toto."
HSienzant is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 04:27 PM   #3644
manifesto
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 1,106
Originally Posted by smartcooky View Post
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/headwnd.htm

4. Werner U. Spitz, M.D., forensic pathologist, Chief Medical Examiner, Wayne County, Michigan: "7. It is impossible to conclude from the motion of the President's head and body following the head shot, from which direction the shots came. There is no doubt that as soon as the President was struck in the head, death occurred. The President's body was thus limp, devoid of control and stability normally exerted by the cerebral centers. Nothing would keep the body up at this stage and a forward drop is likely to occur. The subsequent backward movement of the President's head can be explained by sudden decerebration. This position is well known as "decerebrate posture" and is characterized by opisthotonos, a tetanic spasm -- or seizure-like condition."

5. Richard Lindenberg, M.D., Director of Neuropathology and Legal Medicine, State of Maryland: "Immediately after the shot through the head the President took rather abruptly an almost erect position before slumping over to the left. This straightening is to be considered a sudden opisthotonic reflex movement due to decerebration."


Human reaction time is about 1/3 of a second, and reflex action is immediate. Therefore, we can expect decerebrate reflexes within human reaction time (less than 2 Zapruder Frames) of bullet impact
I asked for your source where you found that deceberate reflexes are delayed with aproximatly 0.3 seconds.

Wher did you find this?

Quote:
Which are also known as decerebrate posturing, decerebrate response, decerebrate rigidity, and extensor posturing.
Yes, but to keep it simple lets use decerebate reflexes as a group name if you don’t mind.

Quote:
The world does not happen in fraction of a second snapshots, but the limitations of a movie camera is that it can only show the world in fraction of a second snapshots. This is as true now with a digital camera as it was back in 1963.

Unlike most of the home movie cameras of the time, which used a rotating disk as a shutter, Zapruder's Bell And Howell 414PD movie camera used a proper camera type shutter. It had an exposure time of 1/40th of a second (25 milliseconds) per frame. The implications of this is that for every frame cycle of 1/18 of a second (56ms) the shutter is closed for 31ms (film sees no image). The bullet is likely to have impacted some time during the 31 ms closed time between Z312 and Z313, since there appears to be no evidence of impact in Z312
So, if your estimate is correct, how do you explain the head movement forward a little bit more than two inches between Z312-313, if the bullet hit at the end of Z312?

Quote:
No, not quite.

The bullet fragments when it strikes the bone at the back of JFK's skull. Some of the kinetic energy is dissipated at the point of impact (which is why Kennedy's head moved forward between Z312 and Z313). However, the fragments still carry a lot of kinetic energy, and most of that energy is dissipated in the form of shock waves and a pressure cavity. When a high velocity bullet strikes the the head, penetrates the skull and moves through the brain, pressure changes of as high as 1500 psi or higher can develop. There are three types of pressure change

1. the shock wave or high pressure pulse formed when the bullet strikes the head;

2. very high pressure regions form immediately in front of and all around the moving bullets or bullet fragments

3. relatively slow, low pressure changes which cause a large explosive temporary cavity to be formed behind the bullet or bullet fragments.

In the case of the head, the pressure is pushing out, but the skull is closed, then the cavity collapsed. The pressure is too much of the skull to cope with, and it explodes

https://www.dropbox.com/s/x4lisdkhwy...BGel.gif?raw=1

In addition, I submit this, a gif made by a poster called "William Seger" (who is also a member here). The first time I saw it was a post by him made at "Democratic Underground" about five years ago. I don't usually like to plagiarise, but in this case I will, because I cannot say it any better than he did, so I will quote from his post (my emphasis)

https://www.dropbox.com/s/madug7efr9...-317.gif?raw=1

Here's one that shows a couple of previous frames (to prove there was no forward motion before frame 313), and several frames after that to show why the back-and-to-left cannot be explained by momentum from the bullet because it comes 1/6 second after the hit and it shows acceleration over several frames, which implies a continued force long after the bullet is gone:
But you didn’t answer my question?

1. Do you mean that the ”explosion” at the top right of JFK’s head in Z313 is like ’pushing’ the head back and to the left?

2. Or do you mean that a jet recoil effect is causing said movements?
__________________
"The very word 'secrecy' is repugnant in a free and open society" - John F. Kennedy
manifesto is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 04:31 PM   #3645
HSienzant
Illuminator
 
HSienzant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 4,039
Originally Posted by manifesto View Post
So, if your estimate is correct, how do you explain the head movement forward a little bit more than two inches between Z312-313, if the bullet hit at the end of Z312?
Asked and answered. It's the bullet transferring its kinetic energy at that time. Z312 is immediately before the bullet hit. Z313 is immediately after the bullet hit. The movement forward is caused by the bullet impact on the head.


Originally Posted by manifesto View Post
1. Do you mean that the ”explosion” at the top right of JFK’s head in Z313 is like ’pushing’ the head back and to the left?

2. Or do you mean that a jet recoil effect is causing said movements?
Is this a trick question? Both 1 and 2 are describing the 'Jet Effect'.

Hank
__________________
"Looks like we're really in nut country now, Toto."

Last edited by HSienzant; Yesterday at 04:33 PM.
HSienzant is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 04:38 PM   #3646
manifesto
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 1,106
Originally Posted by smartcooky View Post
Utter rubbish

The spatter is a result of the pressure cavity, which travels behind the bullet!

Watch this again

https://www.dropbox.com/s/x4lisdkhwy...BGel.gif?raw=1
You can’t see that the back spatter is shooting out backwards against the bullets trajectory at the instant it hits the gel block?

Look again.

Quote:
No. JFK's head accelerates backwards after Z313. If the movement backwards was the result of transferred momentum from a shot from the front, then that cannot happen, acceleration requires a force to be applied. What is the force causing the acceleration?
Have you meassured this acceleration?

Show me.

Quote:
No. Based on simple observation
No. Based on a not proven assumption, conjuring from that.

That is 11th century teleology.
__________________
"The very word 'secrecy' is repugnant in a free and open society" - John F. Kennedy
manifesto is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 04:40 PM   #3647
Axxman300
Master Poster
 
Axxman300's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Central California Coast
Posts: 2,751
Originally Posted by manifesto View Post
So why did WC/FBI/LIFE/CIA suppress the fact that the Z-film showed JFK’s head snap violently back and to the left when hit by a fatal bullet? Because the Z-film corroborated their conclusion of only two bullets from behind?

Isn’t that a bit, counter productive?
Nothing was suppressed.

It's doubtful that anyone at CIA ever saw the Zapruder Film, and Dulles was not an active officer when he was in the Warren Commission.

The FBI didn't suppress anything.

The Warren Commission printed the frames.

Life printed most of them.

Nobody was going to show the Zapruder Film because Zapruder owned the rights to it, and more importantly nobody wanted to put Jackie Kennedy through any more pain.

Quote:
No one is disputing shots from behind. The issue at hand still is if shots were fired from in front. The evidence of this are overwhelming.
There is no evidence of shots from the front.

Quote:
Point is. IF there was/is a cover up of more than one shooter, of course you will not find ”physical” evidence laying around for everyone to pick up.
Actually there would be evidence starting with the dead body. Then, since the area behind the picket fence was wide open the gunman would have been visible to a number of people on the triple overpass, and the plaza, and from behind the plaza.

Quote:
Occipital bone = lower part of the back of the head. Not a trace of this wound in the x-rays.
You have not seen them all.

Quote:
The HSCA acoustic evidence show one rifle shot from the knoll exactly at frame Z313, so no, it didn’t miss.
No, the recording used was from an officer at the Trademart.


Quote:
The DPD sent out a description on the radio of a suspect man with a Winchester 3030 minutes after the shooting. No one knows who gave that description or from where. Gone.
So what? Rumors and panic set in during incidents like this. A professional assassin leaves his weapon behind. He didn't buy it, and the serial numbers have been filed off.

Quote:
The point I’m making is that everywhere you look, you see broken, dodgy or non existent chain of custody. This is the case with almost all the technical evidence. Even more alarming is that much of it has to be willfully fabricated since ’honest mistakes’ can’t be the explanation.

Time and again. Everywhere you look.

Why is that?
What do you care? The dictabelt has the single most tenuous chain of custody of any single related to the case, and yet you quote it like it's the Bible.
__________________
Disingenuous Piranha
Axxman300 is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 04:43 PM   #3648
Axxman300
Master Poster
 
Axxman300's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Central California Coast
Posts: 2,751
Originally Posted by manifesto View Post
You can’t see that the back spatter is shooting out backwards against the bullets trajectory at the instant it hits the gel block?

Look again.

Have you meassured this acceleration?

Show me.

No. Based on a not proven assumption, conjuring from that.

That is 11th century teleology.
Here's what 21st Century technology says:

https://www.heliyon.com/article/e00603

Spoiler alert: Your wrong, the shot came from behind.
__________________
Disingenuous Piranha
Axxman300 is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 04:59 PM   #3649
manifesto
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 1,106
Originally Posted by HSienzant View Post


Bravo. That wasn't too hard, was it?
IF a ”knoll witness” equals someone who places the shooter specifically on the knoll, that is.

IF on the other hand a ”knoll witness” points to the direction of the knoll, they still belong to the category.

So, since the real issue at hand is from what directions witnesses reported shots, they should belong to the knoll-category, shouldn’t they?

Or are we here just playing word games?

Quote:
You're starting to see my point,
I have seen your point since day one, Hank. Don’t you worry about that. Loud and clear.

Quote:
that the data has been manipulated in those lists to increase the overall count of knoll witnesses and decrease the overall count of TSBD witnesses.

So with this admission, we've gone from 52 knoll witnesses to 50. Right?
No. No manipulations. Since ”the grassy knoll” is a world famous meme catching on only months after the event it is not to be expected that witnesses far from said knoll pinpoint the source as ”the (grassy) knoll”. Since the knoll was/is perfectly alligned in between the ”viaduct” and where the ladies stood, the direction is the same.

That is, the knoll is bordering the underpass and to hear the distinction of maybe 20 meters closer that far away is not to be expected.

Quote:
We were never at a majority as per your original remarks. Over time you've come down on that claim as well.
Yes ”we” are. 52 witnesses hearing shots from the (direction) of the knoll, still stands.

Quote:
I pointed out your various claims concerning the percentage of knoll witnesses were not true in this post: http://www.internationalskeptics.com...postcount=3184

So we're making real progress here. You're admitting your conspiracy site source didn't properly vet their list. You're admitting the list is inflated. And we've shown your claims about the relative percentage of knoll witnesses wasn't true either.

Hank
Knoll, as the source, is wrong.

Knoll, as the direction, correct.

And, since they stood way up at the intersection, the direction is enough.


52 witnesses said the position/direction of the knoll.
__________________
"The very word 'secrecy' is repugnant in a free and open society" - John F. Kennedy
manifesto is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 05:07 PM   #3650
RoboTimbo
Hostile Nanobacon
 
RoboTimbo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Perfection, NV
Posts: 28,884
Originally Posted by manifesto View Post
52 witnesses said the position/direction of the knoll.
You are withdrawing your previous admission now that you have finally seen where you're being led by the nose? Don't you wish you'd seen the trap earlier?
RoboTimbo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 05:09 PM   #3651
HSienzant
Illuminator
 
HSienzant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 4,039
Originally Posted by manifesto View Post
Have you meassured this acceleration?
SIX SECONDS IN DALLAS, PAGE 274

From Thompson's chart (Line AC).

Frame Line AC .... |Change (inches)|
313 ... 57.859
314 ... 57.321 .......... 0.538
315 ... 56.248 .......... 1.073
316 ... 55.023 .......... 1.225
317 ... 53.319 .......... 1.704

Line AC is the distance from the back of JFKs head to the handhold on the back of the car as computed in Thompson's book. This distance is decreasing, and the distance is decreasing more per each subsequent frame (third column - difference between earlier frame and current frame).

That's acceleration.

And it was measured back in 1967 in Thompson's book.

Hank
__________________
"Looks like we're really in nut country now, Toto."

Last edited by HSienzant; Yesterday at 05:15 PM.
HSienzant is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 05:25 PM   #3652
manifesto
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 1,106
Originally Posted by BStrong View Post
I guess you're too busy digging your hole to nowhere to address my earlier posts,
Provide the links and I address, no worries.

Quote:
so I'll address the 1st bolded nugget of nuttiness.

The blood mist that exits a entrance or exit wound doesn't meet or exceed the velocity of the penetrating projectile - blood spatter defined as "high velocity" is generated by projectile impacts as low as 100 feet per second. The volume of ejected blood spatter can be greater with a higher velocity projectile than a lower velocity projectile but the potential velocity of ejected blood (liquid is substantially different than a solid for the purposes of acceleration) can not equal or exceed projectile velocity.

https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/241744.pdf
Warren Commission Exhibit 390 demonstrates Canadian blood spatter analyst, Michael J. Sweet (1954-2006) published research regarding the velocity of blood projected from forceful impact. Utilizing human blood, Sweet’s research documented blood leaving the point of the impact travelled 3.59 times faster than the velocity of the impacting object (Sweet, 1993).

~ Fiester, Sherry P, 2012.

Quote:
Is the second bolded intended to create dramatic tension or just drama?
No, just courtesy.
__________________
"The very word 'secrecy' is repugnant in a free and open society" - John F. Kennedy
manifesto is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 05:32 PM   #3653
manifesto
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 1,106
Originally Posted by bknight View Post
Science profoundly rejects manifesto's bare assertion of blood spatter travelling faster than the bullet itself.
Does it now?
Warren Commission Exhibit 390 demonstrates Canadian blood spatter analyst, Michael J. Sweet (1954-2006) published research regarding the velocity of blood projected from forceful impact. Utilizing human blood, Sweet’s research documented blood leaving the point of the impact travelled 3.59 times faster than the velocity of the impacting object (Sweet, 1993).

~ Fiester, Sherry P, 2012.
__________________
"The very word 'secrecy' is repugnant in a free and open society" - John F. Kennedy
manifesto is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 05:34 PM   #3654
smartcooky
Philosopher
 
smartcooky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Nelson, New Zealand
Posts: 7,946
Originally Posted by manifesto View Post
Wrong. https://www.maryferrell.org/DealeyPl...page=survey216

That information is incorrect
Wrong. The McAdams site has the correct information.

Here is the actual list of witness reports used by all the various CT nutcases, as well as real analysts, and what they concluded. You check it for yourself by going to scanned copies of the actual recorded police documentation (if you can figure out how).

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/earwitnesses.htm

have at it.

Originally Posted by manifesto View Post
So why did WC/FBI/LIFE/CIA suppress the fact that the Z-film showed JFK’s head snap violently back and to the left when hit by a fatal bullet? Because the Z-film corroborated their conclusion of only two bullets from behind?

Isn’t that a bit, counter productive?

Cite your source for your bare assertion that facts were suppressed (must be a reliable source, not a CT nutcase one)

Originally Posted by manifesto View Post
What forensics?
The forensic ballistic match between the ONLY bullet fragments found and Oswalds Carcano, to the exclusion of all other weapons

Originally Posted by manifesto View Post
The very few that are still around, maybe. Could be fake.
Cite your source for your bare assertion that photographs have been faked (must be a reliable source, not a CT nutcase one)

Originally Posted by manifesto View Post
Could be of JFK after they restored him for the funeral.
Cite your source for your bare assertion that these photographs were after restoration for his funeral and purported to be before (must be a reliable source, not a CT nutcase one)

Originally Posted by manifesto View Post
Proven forgeries.
Cite your source for your bare assertion that the x-ray photographs were forged (must be a reliable source, not a CT nutcase one)

Originally Posted by manifesto View Post
Which ”terminal ballistics” are you talking about?
You don't know what "terminal ballistics" is.

Terminal ballistics is the study of how a projectile behaves when it hits its target and transfers its kinetic energy to the target (the bullet's design, as well as its impact velocity, plays a huge role in how the energy is transferred).

When you claim (incorrectly) that JFK's head went back as a result of a shot from the front, you expressing an opinion about the terminal ballistics involved.

When you claim (incorrectly) that the reason for the acceleration of JFK's head backwards was momentum transfer from a bullet, you are expressing an opinion about the terminal ballistics involved.

It is clear that you don't even know what terminal ballistics is, let alone anything about the subject

Originally Posted by manifesto View Post
No one is disputing shots from behind. The issue at hand still is if shots were fired from in front. The evidence of this are overwhelming.
There is absolutely no viable physical evidence for shots from in front

No bullets
No bullet fragments
No eye witnesses to a shooter in front

Originally Posted by manifesto View Post
There are reports of bullet marks on the pavements and one photo of what looks like an officer in civil clothes picking up something small from the grass south of lower Elm Street.
Cite your source for your bare assertion that there were bullet marks on the pavement. Cite your source for your bare assertion that witnesses reported seeing police pick up things from the pavement (must be reliable sources, not CT nutcase ones).

Originally Posted by manifesto View Post

Point is. IF there was/is a cover up of more than one shooter, of course you will not find ”physical” evidence laying around for everyone to pick up.

That said, mistakes were made and little pieces here and there slipped through the net. The Harper fragment is a good example, found by a medical student in the grass south of Elm the day after the assassination. He gave it to his relative, Dr Harper, working as a forensic pathologist at Methodist Hospital in Dallas.

The fragment was a 7x5 cm cranial fragment of occipital bone and at the most a day old. They photographed it, wrote a report and gave it to the Secret Sevice in Dallas never to be seen again. Luckily they kept copies of the photographs and of their written report. Three forensic pathologists.

Occipital bone = lower part of the back of the head. Not a trace of this wound in the x-rays.
Ah, the old CT "missing evidence trick"... if there is no evidence then there is a cover up.

No. Over here in the real world, no evidence doesn't mean cover up, it means there is no evidence - no evidence of anything.

Originally Posted by manifesto View Post
The HSCA acoustic evidence show one rifle shot from the knoll exactly at frame Z313, so no, it didn’t miss.

One fatal rifle shot from the knoll was enough, wasn’t it?
The acoustic evidence from the dictabelt has been debunked over and over and over; its a dead horse you are flogging

There never were any shots fired from the knoll, or the stockade fence, or the triple underpass, or the drain cover, or the roof of the Dal-Tex building, or a lower floor window of the TSBD. There is only evidence of shots coming from ONE place; the sixth floor window in the south east corner of the TSBD. Those shots were fired by Lee Harvey Oswald, who acted alone on that day.

Originally Posted by manifesto View Post
I suppose you have scientific meassurements and empirical tests on blindfolded subjects to back this up?
Asked and answered. You dismissed that post with its diagrams as meaningless.

Originally Posted by manifesto View Post
Did he belong to the group of officers who found the alleged murder weapon?

Did he belong to the group of officers who found the alleged murder weapon?

Did he belong to the group of officers who found the alleged murder weapon?

The DPD sent out a description on the radio of a suspect man with a Winchester 3030 minutes after the shooting. No one knows who gave that description or from where. Gone.
You missed the point, as usual?

Originally Posted by manifesto View Post
The point I’m making is that everywhere you look, you see broken, dodgy or non existent chain of custody. This is the case with almost all the technical evidence. Even more alarming is that much of it has to be willfully fabricated since ’honest mistakes’ can’t be the explanation.

Time and again. Everywhere you look.
Everywhere I look I see evidence of three shots fired from the 6th floor of the TSBD, one miss, two hits, of which one was fatal, and no other shots fired from any direction.

Originally Posted by manifesto View Post
Why is that?
I guess of your mind is so open that your brains fall out, you can imagine a conspiracy in everything.
__________________
► 9/11 was a terrorist attack by Islamic extremists; 12 Apollo astronauts really did walk on the Moon; JFK was assassinated by Lee Harvey Oswald,who acted alone.
► Never underestimate the power of the Internet to lend unwarranted credibility to the colossally misinformed. - Jay Utah
► Heisenberg's Law - The weirdness of the Universe is inversely proportional to the scale at which you observe it, or not.
smartcooky is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 05:38 PM   #3655
HSienzant
Illuminator
 
HSienzant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 4,039
Originally Posted by manifesto View Post
~ Fiester, Sherry P, 2012.
Fiester is a conspiracy theorist. Don't quote Fiester's claim. Quote the original claim by the original source (Michael Sweet).

Go ahead, we'll wait.

Hank
__________________
"Looks like we're really in nut country now, Toto."
HSienzant is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 05:59 PM   #3656
smartcooky
Philosopher
 
smartcooky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Nelson, New Zealand
Posts: 7,946
Originally Posted by manifesto View Post
Does it now?
Warren Commission Exhibit 390 demonstrates Canadian blood spatter analyst, Michael J. Sweet (1954-2006) published research regarding the velocity of blood projected from forceful impact. Utilizing human blood, Sweet’s research documented blood leaving the point of the impact travelled 3.59 times faster than the velocity of the impacting object (Sweet, 1993).

~ Fiester, Sherry P, 2012.
As usual with CTs, you have selectively quoted only the part of the report you THINK supports your case, in this case, you have only quoted part of the abstract. I'll bet you haven't even read the actual report.

Now, lets quote the WHOLE section of the abstract, with all the information you wilfully and dishonestly cut out because it refuted your claim.

"A steel cylinder was allowed to fall freely though a hollow pipe into a pool of blood, thus creating the spatter. An infrared beam at the exit of the pipe activated two strobe lights set to fire at preselected intervals as the cylinder passed through it. The separate strobes provided a double image which was captured on film as the blood left the impact site. The distance between the two images was then measured. The photographs included a 15-centimeter rule which provided a scale for making the measurement. Both human and ovine blood were tested with no significant difference in results. Tests showed that the blood from the point of impact traveled at 5.57 m/sec., 3.59 times faster than the velocity of the impacting object. 6 figures, 2 tables"

https://www.ncjrs.gov/App/Publicatio...aspx?ID=147268

So the exit velocity in that test was 5.57 m/sec from an impact velocity of 1.55 m/s

Did it occur to you, in even the slightest degree, to think through the implications of what you posted, or were you in such a hurry to score internet points that you forgot to really think about it?

If you were to apply the little bit of knowledge you think you have gained, to a bullet impact of 2300 fps, then the splatter would need to be travelling at over 8257 fps... that is 7.5x the speed of sound... this is clearly impossible

If you refer it back to Z313, all the spatter would have disappeared from the frame by Z314... at 1/18th of a second frame rate, by Z314 all the spatter would be 459 feet away.
__________________
► 9/11 was a terrorist attack by Islamic extremists; 12 Apollo astronauts really did walk on the Moon; JFK was assassinated by Lee Harvey Oswald,who acted alone.
► Never underestimate the power of the Internet to lend unwarranted credibility to the colossally misinformed. - Jay Utah
► Heisenberg's Law - The weirdness of the Universe is inversely proportional to the scale at which you observe it, or not.

Last edited by smartcooky; Yesterday at 06:03 PM.
smartcooky is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 06:03 PM   #3657
manifesto
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 1,106
Originally Posted by smartcooky View Post
A tiny, tiny amount.... nowhere near as much as you are claiming for the JFK headshot
It is not the ”amount” I’m talking about, it’s the instant effect of back spatter.

Quote:
I can see that you have utterly no clue about terminal ballistics. Do you even own or have you ever even fired a firearm.
Instead of questioning me and my skills in this and that, explain what you are complaining about.

Quote:
Utter rubbish.

Why do you think forensic ballistics experts use ballistic gel and ballistics soap in their testing? Go on, look it up.
The gel for mimic human tissue and soap for blood/fluids.

Do you see any soap in the gif?



Quote:
Looks like you know nothing about 9th grade physics either.

Acceleration requires a force to be CONTINUING to act on the object while it is accelerating. When a bullet strikes an stationary object it accelerates MOMENTARILY, then there is no further force acting on the object, so it decelerates. JFK's head continues to accelerate (the spacing of the head position increases between consecutive frames Z314, Z315, Z316, Z317). This shows that there MUST be a force acting on his head. That cannot be from an impact - take your foot off the gas and your car decelerates.
I wrote this earlier.
First the head stops, in an instance. Second, the head changes direction/accelerates. Third, the head is traveling. Fourth, the head stops and comes to rest. All this is happening in between Z312 and Z321.
Still unclear?

Quote:
No. There was no impact from the front, there is no evidence to support that. Pure conjecture on your part
So, what caused the violent thrust back and to the left?

1. Alvarez jet recoil is proven a fraud.

2. Decerebrate reflexes are way to slow and do not explain the sum of JFK’s movement anyway.

3. The limo was decelerating during the relevant time sequence, so the force was opposite the backward headsnap.

So, what caused it? Magic?

Quote:
No, just simple observation.
So, if ”simple observation” is enough, why did the authorities surpress the info in the Z-film showing JFK’s head violently being thrown back and to the left when hit by a bullet?

If everyone can see that it corroborates a bullet from behind = the official story?

Explain.
__________________
"The very word 'secrecy' is repugnant in a free and open society" - John F. Kennedy
manifesto is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 06:04 PM   #3658
HSienzant
Illuminator
 
HSienzant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 4,039
Originally Posted by manifesto View Post
Since ”the grassy knoll” is a world famous meme catching on only months after the event it is not to be expected that witnesses far from said knoll pinpoint the source as ”the (grassy) knoll”.
But by the same token, people naming a specific different structure, especially one prone to echoes like the overpass (or 'viaduct') as noted in the testimony of Lee Bowers, shouldn't be counted as the behind the fence on the knoll, either. People were all over the map, but your cited source doesn't care - anything that could be interpreted as the knoll becomes the knoll. Some (like James Crawford and the witness below) are called knoll witnesses on very flimsy grounds:

Here's a man (Nolan Potter) who's called a knoll witness because of his statement that says he saw smoke in front of the TSBD rising above the trees.
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/exhibits/ce1418.htm

== QUOTE ==
He then saw President KENNEDY slump over in his car and the Presidential car drive through the underpass. POTTER said he recalls seeing smoke in front of the Texas School Book Depository Building rising above the trees. POTTER said there were people running in every direction and he noticed a policeman drive his motorcycle up the slope towards the Texas School Book Depository Building. POTTER said he could not determine from which direction the shot were fired.
== UNQUOTE ==


Originally Posted by manifesto View Post
Since the knoll was/is perfectly alligned in between the ”viaduct” and where the ladies stood, the direction is the same.
Does that work the other way as well? Then throw out all the men on the overpass who named the knoll as the source of the shots. After all, the knoll was perfectly aligned between the Depository and where the men stood on the overpass. So I'll make that trade.

You retain (2 witnesses): Davis and Kounas as knoll witnesses.
I get (8 witnesses) Dodd, Holland, Miller, Murphy, Potter, Reilly, Simmons, and Winborn as Depository witnesses.

Two men who were in the pilot or lead car also are counted as knoll witnesses at your source. Since those cars were ahead of the Presidential limo, and approaching the overpass when the shots rang out, those two men had the knoll between themselves and the Depository. Those two men are Curry and Sorrels.

All ten of the latter witnesses were on the overpass or about to go under it. All ten are named as knoll witnesses. It's quite possible those ten men heard the shots from the more distant Depository, and thought it came from the closer knoll. After all, "the direction is the same" - *Your argument*.

So you get to keep those two (Davis and Kounas), using your logic, but we get to move the other ten to the Depository side, using your logic.

Don't you love how your logic sometimes works against you?

So that leaves you with 42 witnesses, down ten from the original 52, and the Depository goes from 48 to 58 (up ten from the original 48).

And then of course there's James Crawford. So it goes from 42 to 41 for the knoll, and from 58 to 59 for the Depository.

And of course, there's no hard evidence of shots from the knoll, no damage to the President or anyone or anything else from the right front, no rifle, no shells, no fragments, no nearly whole bullet recovered. No witnesses to a shooter there.

And on the Depository side, we have a rifle. We have shells, we have fragments, we have a nearly whole bullet. We have ten witnesses who saw a gunman or a rifle up there. We have an autopsy that lists two shots from behind. We have every forensic pathologist who ever examined the extant autopsy materials agreeing that there were two shots - and only two shots - that struck the President, and both were inflicted from behind.

Are you understanding the depth of your problem yet?

Probably not. You're that far down the rabbit hole.

Hank
__________________
"Looks like we're really in nut country now, Toto."

Last edited by HSienzant; Yesterday at 06:14 PM.
HSienzant is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 06:11 PM   #3659
HSienzant
Illuminator
 
HSienzant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 4,039
Originally Posted by smartcooky View Post
If you refer it back to Z313, all the spatter would have disappeared from the frame by Z314... at 1/18th of a second frame rate, by Z314 all the spatter would be 459 feet away.
Even assuming frame 312.5 as the impact time, that's still a half-second between impact and frame exposure. It wouldn't show in frame 313 either.

You can't trust CT authors. They are more than willing to bend the truth to make a point, as long as the point points to conspiracy or cover-up, or both.

Hank
__________________
"Looks like we're really in nut country now, Toto."
HSienzant is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 06:13 PM   #3660
HSienzant
Illuminator
 
HSienzant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 4,039
Originally Posted by manifesto View Post
why did the authorities surpress the info in the Z-film showing JFK’s head violently being thrown back and to the left when hit by a bullet?
Asked and answered just above. Keep repeating your nonsense.

Like the quote says:

Originally Posted by HSienzant View Post
From a review of the book "Pseudoscience: The Conspiracy Against Science".
https://www.skeptic.com/reading_room...cience-review/

== QUOTE ==
In the final chapter, “Truth Shall Prevail,” Paul Joseph Barnett and James C. Kaufman stress that scientists are searching for the truth, sometimes at great personal cost. “Humility, or a reticence to speak in absolutes, is the single greatest distinction between the sides of pseudoscience and evidence-based science.” They add, “Responding to pseudoscience takes its toll. Scientists get frustrated when they have to repeat facts, refute the same fallacious arguments, and end up in defensive positions because their detractors are not bound to the same rules. Like nuisance lawsuits, pseudoscience rarely plays to win; the goal is simply not to lose. Getting people to doubt science counts as a victory.”
== UNQUOTE ==

Sounds a lot like CT posters, doesn't it?
__________________
"Looks like we're really in nut country now, Toto."
HSienzant is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 06:23 PM   #3661
HSienzant
Illuminator
 
HSienzant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 4,039
Originally Posted by manifesto View Post
52 witnesses said the position/direction of the knoll.
James Crawford said the Depository was the source of the shots at the time of, or just after, the final shot. He is counted as a knoll witnesses.

Nolan Potter said he saw smoke rising above the trees in front of the Depository. He is counted as a knoll witness.

Your website isn't accurately counting knoll and Depository witnesses.

Numerous other witnesses said the railroad yards, which as you noted, runs all the way to New Orleans (and from the north to the south knoll and beyond). Your website is assuming what it needs to prove in many cases, and outright ignoring the testimony in others.

The 52 count is inflated. Way inflated.

Hank
__________________
"Looks like we're really in nut country now, Toto."

Last edited by HSienzant; Yesterday at 06:25 PM.
HSienzant is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 06:31 PM   #3662
HSienzant
Illuminator
 
HSienzant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 4,039
Originally Posted by manifesto View Post
I wrote this earlier.
First the head stops, in an instance. Second, the head changes direction/accelerates. Third, the head is traveling. Fourth, the head stops and comes to rest. All this is happening in between Z312 and Z321.
Still unclear?
Yes. Your claim is that the head stops in Z312. That implies it was moving in frame Z311. But we don't see that.

The head is stable in a comparison between Z311 and Z312.
The head moves forward about 2-3 inches between Z312 and Z313.
The head starts to reverse its motion between Z313 and Z314.
The head is accelerating backward between Z313 and Z317.

The latter implies a force acting on the body over that time to cause the acceleration, not a one-time transfer of kinetic energy. Newton determined that. He's another physicist, but not a Nobel Prize winning one (they didn't award one at the time).
__________________
"Looks like we're really in nut country now, Toto."
HSienzant is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 06:33 PM   #3663
HSienzant
Illuminator
 
HSienzant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 4,039
Originally Posted by manifesto View Post
3. The limo was decelerating during the relevant time sequence, so the force was opposite the backward headsnap.
Who determined the limo decelerated starting at Z313-Z14?

Citation?
__________________
"Looks like we're really in nut country now, Toto."
HSienzant is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 06:46 PM   #3664
manifesto
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 1,106
Originally Posted by smartcooky View Post
As usual with CTs, you have selectively quoted only the part of the report you THINK supports your case, in this case, you have only quoted part of the abstract. I'll bet you haven't even read the actual report.

Now, lets quote the WHOLE section of the abstract, with all the information you wilfully and dishonestly cut out because it refuted your claim.

"A steel cylinder was allowed to fall freely though a hollow pipe into a pool of blood, thus creating the spatter. An infrared beam at the exit of the pipe activated two strobe lights set to fire at preselected intervals as the cylinder passed through it. The separate strobes provided a double image which was captured on film as the blood left the impact site. The distance between the two images was then measured. The photographs included a 15-centimeter rule which provided a scale for making the measurement. Both human and ovine blood were tested with no significant difference in results. Tests showed that the blood from the point of impact traveled at 5.57 m/sec., 3.59 times faster than the velocity of the impacting object. 6 figures, 2 tables"

https://www.ncjrs.gov/App/Publicatio...aspx?ID=147268

So the exit velocity in that test was 5.57 m/sec from an impact velocity of 1.55 m/s

Did it occur to you, in even the slightest degree, to think through the implications of what you posted, or were you in such a hurry to score internet points that you forgot to really think about it?

If you were to apply the little bit of knowledge you think you have gained, to a bullet impact of 2300 fps, then the splatter would need to be travelling at over 8257 fps... that is 7.5x the speed of sound... this is clearly impossible

If you refer it back to Z313, all the spatter would have disappeared from the frame by Z314... at 1/18th of a second frame rate, by Z314 all the spatter would be 459 feet away.
If you read the posts I was responding to (relevant context) they claim that blood spatter can’t travel faster than the incoming projectile. Well, consider those claims disproven.

I do not claim that the back spatter seen in the Z-film is traveling four times faster than the incoming bullet, but I do claim that it is traveling extremely fast and begin to do so aproximately 0.000400 seconds after the bullet hit the head.

Ergo. The visible back spatter seen in Z313 is instant and not a delayed effect from a bullet from the back hitting the head in Z312.
__________________
"The very word 'secrecy' is repugnant in a free and open society" - John F. Kennedy
manifesto is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 06:58 PM   #3665
manifesto
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 1,106
Originally Posted by HSienzant View Post
Yes. Your claim is that the head stops in Z312.
You missed the ”in between” here.

In between Z312 and Z321. Head stops in Z313.
__________________
"The very word 'secrecy' is repugnant in a free and open society" - John F. Kennedy
manifesto is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 07:03 PM   #3666
Axxman300
Master Poster
 
Axxman300's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Central California Coast
Posts: 2,751
Originally Posted by manifesto View Post

So, what caused the violent thrust back and to the left?

1. Alvarez jet recoil is proven a fraud.

2. Decerebrate reflexes are way to slow and do not explain the sum of JFK’s movement anyway.

3. The limo was decelerating during the relevant time sequence, so the force was opposite the backward headsnap.

So, what caused it? Magic?
The "Jet Effect" is confirmed, which you'd know if you read this:

https://www.heliyon.com/article/e00603

You wanted science, here's science that says you're wrong.
__________________
Disingenuous Piranha
Axxman300 is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 07:07 PM   #3667
BStrong
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 11,193
Since a certain poster is married to a misidentification of LHO's Carcano and wishes to ignore the fact that cops are subject to attacks of dumb-ass to the head when handling or identifying firearms, here's a bit of recent video evidence of LEO firearm ignorance.

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.
I AGREE


This is from a program called Live PD. I first became aware of this clip when it was brought to my attention by a friend that watches the program.

He provided me with a copy from his DVR because he wanted to know if the officer featured in the segment knew what he was talking about wrt a firearm seized during a traffic stop - he didn't. Go to 1:18. The officer is acting in accordance with pretty much sop everywhere in removing the vehicle occupants one by one, then a firearm is discovered at 1:58. Another officer present properly identifies the general type of piece as "a *********** AK" - it's a US built AK type pistol. The featured officer examines the piece. The safety is on, a 40 round magazine is inserted in the weapon. He makes no effort to remove the magazine to determine if the weapon was loaded or to "clear" (unload) the piece if it was.

He gets back into his unit and makes a comment about the "assault weapon" discovered during the search and the fact that one of the vehicle occupants was a convicted felon and as a prohibited person would be subject to returning to prison.

At 2:49, while removing a female occupant from the vehicle he states that she has to excuse him from being upset as she was sitting on "a machinegun."

At approximately 3:31, the featured officer makes a statement about being "outgunned" if the stop went bad and he'd have to rely on his Glock .40 until he could get to his AR-15. He also identifies the weapon involved as an "SKS assault rifle."

The officer's actions in dealing with the suspects was professional - he knows his police work.

What he absolutely doesn't know about - sop for run-of-the-mill street officers - is how to properly and safely handle and identify a weapon that isn't in his department's inventory. First up, he should have determined if the piece was loaded. He failed to do so. Second, his identification of the piece as a "machinegun" was simple boilerplate language and was incorrect. Had he been trained up, a simple visual inspection would have revealed that the piece wasn't originally manufactured or had been re-manufactured into an actual full-auto AK. I was able to stop the video and observe that there was no sear pin for the auto sear. No sear pin, no full auto (there are half-assed possibilities of AK conversion that leave the piece dangerous to both target and shooter, but if you don't clear the piece and pull the top cover you'll never know) Third, the "SKS" jive. I have no idea because right out of the gate another officer did properly identify the general type of firearm that was seized.

Here is an example of an officer misidentifying not just the weapon in question but failing to take the most basic safe handling procedure that anyone - not just LEO's - is expected to perform in handling a firearm.

The "Mauser" jive is only an earlier example of LEO dumb-ass weapon misidentification.
__________________
"When a man who is honestly mistaken, hears the truth, he will either cease being mistaken or cease being honest." - Anonymous

"Dulce bellum inexpertīs." - Erasmus
BStrong is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 07:15 PM   #3668
BStrong
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 11,193
Originally Posted by manifesto View Post
If you read the posts I was responding to (relevant context) they claim that blood spatter can’t travel faster than the incoming projectile. Well, consider those claims disproven.

I do not claim that the back spatter seen in the Z-film is traveling four times faster than the incoming bullet, but I do claim that it is traveling extremely fast and begin to do so aproximately 0.000400 seconds after the bullet hit the head.

Ergo. The visible back spatter seen in Z313 is instant and not a delayed effect from a bullet from the back hitting the head in Z312.
Which jury are you asserting has ruled in your favor?
__________________
"When a man who is honestly mistaken, hears the truth, he will either cease being mistaken or cease being honest." - Anonymous

"Dulce bellum inexpertīs." - Erasmus
BStrong is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 07:54 PM   #3669
BStrong
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 11,193
Originally Posted by manifesto View Post
Provide the links and I address, no worries.


Warren Commission Exhibit 390 demonstrates Canadian blood spatter analyst, Michael J. Sweet (1954-2006) published research regarding the velocity of blood projected from forceful impact. Utilizing human blood, Sweet’s research documented blood leaving the point of the impact travelled 3.59 times faster than the velocity of the impacting object (Sweet, 1993).

~ Fiester, Sherry P, 2012.

No, just courtesy.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com...postcount=3581

To paraphrase and old and terribly missed old timer, "If you want to tell stories you'd better be sure who you're telling them to."

Your cited source is very specific as to what type of impacts he was describing in his research, and it for damn sure wasn't rifle velocity projectiles:

"Velocity Measurements of Projected Bloodstains from a Medium Velocity
Impact Source,"
M.J. Sweet

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/....1993.10757463

A procedure is described for measuring the velocity of blood spatter generated by a Medium Velocity Impact (1.5–7.5 m/sec.). The blood spatter was created by allowing a steel cylinder to fall free through a hollow pipe into a pool of blood. As the cylinder exited the lower end of the pipe it passed through an infrared beam which triggered two strobe lights set to fire at preselected intervals. As the blood left the impact site, a camera recorded a double image from the two strobes. A 15 cm rule included in the photographs provided a scale for measuring the distance between images.

The top velocity of impact is his research is 24.60 feet per second. Just over 1% of the muzzle velocity of the Carcano 6.5 round.

Maybe whatever filter you run this stuff through is flawed, or you just throw stuff out there that in your limited scope of experience in the subject matter sounds good but this nonsense is a very poor showing. If you don't understand the difference between 2,400 feet per second and 24.6 feet per second it's time to find another hobby.
__________________
"When a man who is honestly mistaken, hears the truth, he will either cease being mistaken or cease being honest." - Anonymous

"Dulce bellum inexpertīs." - Erasmus
BStrong is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 07:57 PM   #3670
smartcooky
Philosopher
 
smartcooky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Nelson, New Zealand
Posts: 7,946
Originally Posted by manifesto View Post
It is not the ”amount” I’m talking about, it’s the instant effect of back spatter.
Rubbish

Originally Posted by manifesto View Post
Instead of questioning me and my skills in this and that, explain what you are complaining about.
I will question your skills any time I like, especially when the content of your posts shows you are lacking in the areas you profess to understand

Originally Posted by manifesto View Post
The gel for mimic human tissueand soap for blood/fluids.
Oh dear. You really don't know anything about terminal ballistics do you.... see why I question you about your knowledge and skills?

Ballistics Gelatin is used to mimic human tissue response to ballistic projectile impact, especuilly with regards to temporary cavity formations and collapse.

Ballistics Soap is used for the same reason as the former above, but because the it is less flexible, the cavity is permanent; it allows the tester to see the moment of maximum cavity expansion. The test block is often cut lengthwise through the cavity after a test to allow the tester to take accurate measurements

Originally Posted by manifesto View Post
Do you see any soap in the gif?
No, and nor would I.

Originally Posted by manifesto View Post
I wrote this earlier.
First the head stops, in an instance. Second, the head changes direction/accelerates. Third, the head is traveling. Fourth, the head stops and comes to rest. All this is happening in between Z312 and Z321.
Still unclear?
Oh, its perfectly clear what you mean, you're just plain wrong, that's all.

Originally Posted by manifesto View Post
what caused the violent thrust back and to the left?
A combination of decerebrate reflex and what was effectively a stick of explosive detonating on the right front side of JFK's head

Originally Posted by manifesto View Post
1. Alvarez jet recoil is proven a fraud.
Cite the source for your bare assertion that Alvarez was a fraud (real sources please, not pretend ones run by CT nutcases)

Originally Posted by manifesto View Post
2. Decerebrate reflexes are way to slow and do not explain the sum of JFK’s movement anyway.
Wrong. I have shown you that is you your fabrication. Decerebrate reflexes can be instantaneous, and often are. Ask a neurologist.

Originally Posted by manifesto View Post
3. The limo was decelerating during the relevant time sequence, so the force was opposite the backward headsnap.
Cite the source for your bare assertion (real sources please, not pretend ones run by CT nutcases)

Originally Posted by manifesto View Post
So, if ”simple observation” is enough, why did the authorities surpress the info in the Z-film showing JFK’s head violently being thrown back and to the left when hit by a bullet?

If everyone can see that it corroborates a bullet from behind = the official story?

Explain.
Authorities did not suppress the "back and to the left".

What authoriries did suppress was the graphic nature if the image of JFK's brain exploding out of the side of this head. This was done in deference to the family.
__________________
► 9/11 was a terrorist attack by Islamic extremists; 12 Apollo astronauts really did walk on the Moon; JFK was assassinated by Lee Harvey Oswald,who acted alone.
► Never underestimate the power of the Internet to lend unwarranted credibility to the colossally misinformed. - Jay Utah
► Heisenberg's Law - The weirdness of the Universe is inversely proportional to the scale at which you observe it, or not.
smartcooky is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Today, 03:43 AM   #3671
smartcooky
Philosopher
 
smartcooky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Nelson, New Zealand
Posts: 7,946
Originally Posted by manifesto View Post
If you read the posts I was responding to (relevant context) they claim that blood spatter can’t travel faster than the incoming projectile. Well, consider those claims disproven.

No, the claim was that spatter from the impact of a BULLET cannot travel faster than the BULLET.
__________________
► 9/11 was a terrorist attack by Islamic extremists; 12 Apollo astronauts really did walk on the Moon; JFK was assassinated by Lee Harvey Oswald,who acted alone.
► Never underestimate the power of the Internet to lend unwarranted credibility to the colossally misinformed. - Jay Utah
► Heisenberg's Law - The weirdness of the Universe is inversely proportional to the scale at which you observe it, or not.
smartcooky is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Today, 07:37 AM   #3672
HSienzant
Illuminator
 
HSienzant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 4,039
Originally Posted by manifesto View Post
You missed the ”in between” here.

In between Z312 and Z321. Head stops in Z313.
So you are excluding Z312?

Your claim "All this is happening in between Z312 and Z321" is not inclusive, but exclusive, and excludes Z312 and Z321?

You are purposely excluding the frame before the impact... which is absolutely the wrong way to do this. Consult any physicist.

And if you mean from 313, then what caused the head to move forward from Z312 to Z313 if not a bullet from behind (the same bullet that fragments thereof were found in the limo, and the same bullet that caused the damage seen at autopsy)?

Hank
__________________
"Looks like we're really in nut country now, Toto."
HSienzant is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Today, 07:56 AM   #3673
HSienzant
Illuminator
 
HSienzant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 4,039
Originally Posted by BStrong View Post
Maybe whatever filter you run this stuff through is flawed, or you just throw stuff out there that in your limited scope of experience in the subject matter sounds good...
There's another alternative. He hasn't realized yet his sources are lying to him. That is what converted me from CT to Warrenite.

Back in my youth, I would read Mark Lane or Harold Weisberg or Sylvia Meagher or Josiah Thompson, et.al., and accept their claims at face value. It was only when I got deeper into the subject - and realized in certain instances they were contradicting each other - that I figured the only way to know who was right was to dig into the first hand testimony myself.

It was only then that I saw the true problem.

They were all taking quotes out of context and twisting stuff to make it appear to be a conspiracy. Of course, because they each twisted it a little differently, they didn't agree with each other.

Now, I could have just shrugged those discrepancies between conspiracy authors off - that's what a lot of CTs do, after all - but I truly wanted a solution to the case. And that's why I purchased a lightly used set of the WC 26 volumes for $2500 ((from a place called the Presidents Box Bookshop back when that $2500 was real money) and started reading. I also purchased a set of the HSCA volumes at the same time (the GPO still had some).

I read through both at least twice. By the time I finished I was a CT no longer. I had seen what was behind the CT curtain.

This is the problem a lot of JFK CT newbies face. They have no idea how long some of these claims have been disproven, and they start reading either the old standards or the CT websites repeating the old standards and they think they are on to something here. And then they repeat the old dis-proven claims about the Mauser or about Oswald in the doorway or about the bullet being planted at Parkland and you just have to sigh and think, "oh god, another newbie!"

Hank
__________________
"Looks like we're really in nut country now, Toto."
HSienzant is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Today, 09:36 AM   #3674
bknight
Muse
 
bknight's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Location: Houston, Texas
Posts: 644
Originally Posted by manifesto View Post
Does it now?
Warren Commission Exhibit 390 demonstrates Canadian blood spatter analyst, Michael J. Sweet (1954-2006) published research regarding the velocity of blood projected from forceful impact. Utilizing human blood, Sweet’s research documented blood leaving the point of the impact travelled 3.59 times faster than the velocity of the impacting object (Sweet, 1993).

~ Fiester, Sherry P, 2012.
Please provide a link to the WC report so that we all may read the passage and determine if this velocity is in context.
bknight is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Today, 09:43 AM   #3675
bknight
Muse
 
bknight's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Location: Houston, Texas
Posts: 644
Originally Posted by smartcooky View Post
As usual with CTs, you have selectively quoted only the part of the report you THINK supports your case, in this case, you have only quoted part of the abstract. I'll bet you haven't even read the actual report.

Now, lets quote the WHOLE section of the abstract, with all the information you wilfully and dishonestly cut out because it refuted your claim.

"A steel cylinder was allowed to fall freely though a hollow pipe into a pool of blood, thus creating the spatter. An infrared beam at the exit of the pipe activated two strobe lights set to fire at preselected intervals as the cylinder passed through it. The separate strobes provided a double image which was captured on film as the blood left the impact site. The distance between the two images was then measured. The photographs included a 15-centimeter rule which provided a scale for making the measurement. Both human and ovine blood were tested with no significant difference in results. Tests showed that the blood from the point of impact traveled at 5.57 m/sec., 3.59 times faster than the velocity of the impacting object. 6 figures, 2 tables"

https://www.ncjrs.gov/App/Publicatio...aspx?ID=147268

So the exit velocity in that test was 5.57 m/sec from an impact velocity of 1.55 m/s

Did it occur to you, in even the slightest degree, to think through the implications of what you posted, or were you in such a hurry to score internet points that you forgot to really think about it?

If you were to apply the little bit of knowledge you think you have gained, to a bullet impact of 2300 fps, then the splatter would need to be travelling at over 8257 fps... that is 7.5x the speed of sound... this is clearly impossible

If you refer it back to Z313, all the spatter would have disappeared from the frame by Z314... at 1/18th of a second frame rate, by Z314 all the spatter would be 459 feet away.
Thanks for the clarification of manifesto's claim. Clearly the blood is not moving at 7.5x the impact velocity.
I think you hit the nail on the head, manifesto is clearly trying to win points with this post.
bknight is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Today, 09:44 AM   #3676
HSienzant
Illuminator
 
HSienzant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 4,039
Originally Posted by manifesto View Post
Does it now?
Warren Commission Exhibit 390 demonstrates Canadian blood spatter analyst, Michael J. Sweet (1954-2006) published research regarding the velocity of blood projected from forceful impact. Utilizing human blood, Sweet’s research documented blood leaving the point of the impact travelled 3.59 times faster than the velocity of the impacting object (Sweet, 1993).

~ Fiester, Sherry P, 2012.
Originally Posted by bknight View Post
Please provide a link to the WC report so that we all may read the passage and determine if this velocity is in context.
Sherry Fiester is simply BEGGING THE QUESTION!

Warren Commission Exhibit 390: https://www.history-matters.com/arch...ol16_0505b.htm

I doubt highly if Manifesto even looked at what CE390 was comprised of. I knew something was fishy because blood spatter wasn't a recognized forensic discipline at the time of the assassination, so there would NOT be any blood spatter evidence within the Warren Commission's 26 volumes. And Sweet was 10 years old in 1964 when the Warren Commission published those 26 volumes.

Hank
__________________
"Looks like we're really in nut country now, Toto."

Last edited by HSienzant; Today at 10:02 AM.
HSienzant is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Today, 10:24 AM   #3677
RoboTimbo
Hostile Nanobacon
 
RoboTimbo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Perfection, NV
Posts: 28,884
Originally Posted by manifesto View Post
Does it now?
Warren Commission Exhibit 390 demonstrates Canadian blood spatter analyst, Michael J. Sweet (1954-2006) published research regarding the velocity of blood projected from forceful impact. Utilizing human blood, Sweet’s research documented blood leaving the point of the impact travelled 3.59 times faster than the velocity of the impacting object (Sweet, 1993).

~ Fiester, Sherry P, 2012.
, what caliber bullet was she using?

LOL.

I admit that you CTs are taken in by everything you read on idiotic conspiracy sites.
RoboTimbo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Conspiracies and Conspiracy Theories

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 10:43 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.