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, 11:54 AM   #3601
bknight
Muse
 
bknight's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Location: Houston, Texas
Posts: 642
Originally Posted by BStrong View Post
I guess you're too busy digging your hole to nowhere to address my earlier posts, 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

Is the second bolded intended to create dramatic tension or just drama?
Science profoundly rejects manifesto's bare assertion of blood spatter travelling faster than the bullet itself.
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 Yesterday, 12:07 PM   #3602
MicahJava
Master Poster
 
MicahJava's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 2,688
manifesto, what is your opinion on the EOP wound if you also argue for the occipital-blowout wound?

Pretty much pointless arguing with these people. They will report and ban you for stupid stuff before showing an honest bone in their body. Quickly, before we get a page full of "well preferably you're not supposed to see any bone in your body".

Last edited by MicahJava; Yesterday at 12:09 PM.
MicahJava 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, 12:24 PM   #3603
manifesto
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 1,096
Originally Posted by bknight View Post
Citation for this bare assertion.
One of the three autopsy doctors, Pierre Finck MD, was questioned during the Garrison trial against CIA’s Clay Shaw. When asked who was in charge of the autopsy ...
Finck replied that Humes actually stopped and asked, “Who is in charge here?” Finck then said he heard an Army General say, “I am.” Finck then added, “You must understand that in those circumstances, there were law enforcement officials, military people with various ranks, and you have to coordinate the operations according to directions” [ ... ]

When Oser asked if Finck felt he had to take orders from this Army General, the pathologist replied with: “No, because there were others, there were Admirals… . And when you are a Lieutenant Colonel in the Army you just follow orders.” He then testified that at the end of the procedure they were told not to discuss what had happened that night.
~ DiEugenio, Jim: 2013
All three doctors were employed by the military, doing the autopsy in a military hospital, Bethesda Naval Hospital.

In the military, you obey orders.

Quote:
Please display your doctors degree and then further your training as a forensic pathologist
Lol. The HSCA medical panel did agree on one thing, the autopsy with report was the most shoddy they had ever seen. And this was the autopsy of the assassinated US president.

Quote:
How many years were "later" do you think the memory might be less certain than the report from the night before?
No, I think that they were less ”coached” when giving sworn testimony to the different investigations that came after the WC.

Quote:
Citation for this bare assertion.
http://www.assassinationweb.com/ag6.htm

Quote:
That is because there as no gaping wound in the back of the head to see or x-ray. Mr. Occam would totally disagree with your contentions, the simplest explanation is one man from the TSBD, firing three shots, missing one and hitting two, with the last assassinating JFK.
So, almost all of the almost 50 witnesses who observed JFK’s headwounds close up had a collective psychosis? Seeing a big gaping whole in the right back of JFK’s head that was not there? Forensic pathologists, senior neurosurgeons, trauma nurses, forensic photographers, FBI-agents, SS-agents, from three different hospitals and two different federal police agencies? Really?

Plus more than 50 of the asked witnesses in Dealey Plaza saying they heard shots from in front?

The two world leading expert teams in acoustic ballistics finding five rifle shots on the DPD dictabelt, in perfect topographical order, at the time sequence when the shooting took place, at the same average speed as the motorcade on Elm and a fourth shot with additional sonar analysis showing a wooping P = 1/100 000 for not being a rifle shot fired from the picket fence on the knoll within a spot of ca 1 square yard?

Witnesses smelling gunsmoke around the fence after the shooting?

Witnesses seeing smoke coming down the knoll after the shooting?

Photographs of smoke over the knoll after the shooting?

Both chiefs of the DPD and the Sheriffs Department ordering their troops to the area behind the picket fence seconds after the shooting?

Three police officers reporting SS-agents behind the fence and behind the TSBD just after the shooting in spite of no such agents in the area until about 20 minutes later when agent Sorrels arrived?

Multiple reports of intimidation and manipulation of witnesses and testimonies in order to make them conform to the fix that was in from the get go = one shooter and three shots from behind/TSBD?

Supression of the information in the Zapruder film, showing the presidents head snapping violently back and to the left when hit by the fatal bullet?

LIFE Magazine lying when stating that JFK turned around almost 180˚ when hit in throat in spite of owning the very film showing no such turn around? To explain away the Parkland doctors statement of a typical small, round and punctuated entrance wound in the throat —-> shot from in front?

Sorry but I see a guy in front of me, hands covering the ears and eyes tight shut, jumping up and down screeming very loud:

- ”No no no lalalala ignore ignore lalala nonono ... !!!!”

Correct?
__________________
"The very word 'secrecy' is repugnant in a free and open society" - John F. Kennedy

Last edited by manifesto; Yesterday at 12:27 PM.
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, 12:26 PM   #3604
jeffas69
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 397
Originally Posted by manifesto View Post
If they were asked from where the shooter (singular) was shooting, they conveyed that only one shooter was behind the attack, ergo one direction.
If they were asked that. If you want to provide evidence that that is the case. Please feel free to do so. Then you will have to provide evidence that the witness was actually swayed into providing only one direction when in fact they heard shots from two different directions.

Originally Posted by manifesto View Post
No. I have common sense.
You should have it. Much of your contributions to the thread show that you are not using it.

Originally Posted by manifesto View Post
Wow. According to null Oswald and Oswald alone shot JFK from behind and therefore all evidence that says otherwise are to be ignored.
Wow. Look at the giant strawman.

Originally Posted by manifesto View Post
Eh ... they were exactly right ... eh ... because they were ... eh ... exactly right?
Wow. Here is another. If you would please respond to what I actually said instead of your wild interpretation of what I said that would be greatly appreciated.

Originally Posted by manifesto View Post
No, you are sliding around all over the place. The question at hand is the ratio of withesses hearing knoll vs TSBD, nothing else, only that.
You do not get to choose what the question at hand is just because you don't like or don't have an answer. The question here is still whether or not any of the "Knoll only" witnessess heard anything more than echoes due to the fact that they had to have heard some echoes of shots that originated at the TSBD. If you disagree well then you have to dump the acoustic analysis.

Originally Posted by manifesto View Post
So far, there were more of those asked saying the knoll than the TSBD. Period.
So far is right. The list of witnessess and the direction classification is still up for debate as to which direction has the most witnessess. I do not agree with the final numbers that Stewart has claimed.

Originally Posted by manifesto View Post
If you want to go beyond this and discuss other possible factors, please do, but that is another question not to be conflated with the direction.
Are you asking me to change the subject?

Originally Posted by manifesto View Post
The reason for HSCA commiting resources and hiring the two world leading expert teams in acoustic ballistics was that human perception and memory only go so far when it comes to detail, numbers, directions, etc.
As you well know, when asked if the acoustic analysis showed proof of a knoll shot the answer was no.

Originally Posted by manifesto View Post
Science trancends these limitations and can provide a more exact and correct, unbiased, answer to exactly what happened, in this case, how many rifle shots were fired and from where they were fired.
If the foundation of the "Science" is built around a recording of the trade mart then it is invalid. I have seen nothing that would prove the recording came from dealey plaza and plenty of evidence from the recording that shows that it was not.

Originally Posted by manifesto View Post
Once again. My contention is that the number of asked witness who said shot/s were fired from in front/knoll is greater than that for from behind/TSBD.
Repeating it will not make it fact! And they are still wrong on count and direction.

Originally Posted by manifesto View Post
This is a documented fact. Period.
Declaring it a fact will also not make it a fact.


Originally Posted by manifesto View Post
And, that said, I have still not even touched upon multiple reports of intimidation or coaching of witnesses by the authorities from the get go. The fix was in.
Change the subject if you wish but you will also have to provide evidence for these claims as well.

Originally Posted by manifesto View Post
The Null = The Fix.
The Null = What fits all the evidence.

Last edited by jeffas69; Yesterday at 12:37 PM. Reason: Grammar
jeffas69 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, 12:27 PM   #3605
BStrong
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 11,185
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
manifesto, what is your opinion on the EOP wound if you also argue for the occipital-blowout wound?

Pretty much pointless arguing with these people. They will report and ban you for stupid stuff before showing an honest bone in their body. Quickly, before we get a page full of "well preferably you're not supposed to see any bone in your body".
Willful ignorance makes for friendly bedfellows.

Might want to remember you're not in your own house and don't make the rules. I've been dinged here and deservedly so - I also don't feel the need to whine about it.
__________________
"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, 12:46 PM   #3606
manifesto
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 1,096
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
manifesto, what is your opinion on the EOP wound if you also argue for the occipital-blowout wound?

Pretty much pointless arguing with these people. They will report and ban you for stupid stuff before showing an honest bone in their body. Quickly, before we get a page full of "well preferably you're not supposed to see any bone in your body".
It is difficult to have a clear opinion, but I can say this:

1. Posner was lying to the Congress when saying that both Humes and Bosswell changed their minds about the position of the entrance wound from slightly above the EOP to where the HSCA medical panel positioned it, ca 11 cm higher up and ca 4 cm to the left on the midline. They never did.

2. Donald Thomas is saying he belive it was a shrapnel wound from a bullet that missed, which seems plausible.

3. It could also have been a bullet fired with a rifle/gun with a silencer which in turn could explain the head nick a couple of inches forward between Z312 - Z313.

4. Bosswell have always insisted on that they identified the ”bullet hole” AFTER they recieved cranial fragments collected from the limo and elsewhere, putting pieces together seeing two ’half holes’ becoming ’one’ —-> detailed observation —-> true, but also confirming the big gaping wound in the right back of the head extending all the way down to the EOP.

5. Humes insisting on the band of very small fragments stretching from back to front in_the_lower_part_of_the_right_brain, not as in the x-rays, in the upper top part.

The point is. The x-ray photos are forgeries or all of the medical and police personel in three different hospitals and two federal agencies, who saw JFK’s headwounds close up, had a mysterious collective psychosis not known to science.

Take your pick.
__________________
"The very word 'secrecy' is repugnant in a free and open society" - John F. Kennedy

Last edited by manifesto; Yesterday at 01:25 PM.
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, 12:59 PM   #3607
jeffas69
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 397
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
manifesto, what is your opinion on the EOP wound if you also argue for the occipital-blowout wound?

Pretty much pointless arguing with these people. They will report and ban you for stupid stuff before showing an honest bone in their body. Quickly, before we get a page full of "well preferably you're not supposed to see any bone in your body".
If you feel that it is pointless then why are you here? As BStrong has said you don't make the rules. I like it here. The rules keep it from being a ridiculous youtube comment style free for all. Who do you feel is being dishonest? All of us? I can tell you honestly that many decades ago I was full on JFK conspiracy believer. Upon discovering both sides of the debate I was convinced that I had been very gullible.
jeffas69 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, 01:02 PM   #3608
RoboTimbo
Hostile Nanobacon
 
RoboTimbo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Perfection, NV
Posts: 28,877
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
manifesto, what is your opinion on the EOP wound if you also argue for the occipital-blowout wound?

<snipped whining>
What is your opinion of why Oswald went on to murder Officer Tippitt and then try to murder more officers in the theater after he was cornered there?

Aren't there any honest CTists who can answer?
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, 01:09 PM   #3609
smartcooky
Philosopher
 
smartcooky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Nelson, New Zealand
Posts: 7,941
Originally Posted by manifesto View Post
Funny that you are posting a gif confirming my statement. Look at where the bullet enters the gel block. The gel travels outward = back spatters at the instant the bullet enters the block.
A tiny, tiny amount.... nowhere near as much as you are claiming for the JFK headshot

I can see that you have utterly no clue about terminal ballistics. Do you even own or have you ever even fired a firearm.

Originally Posted by manifesto View Post
That said, the gel is not watery blood which continues outward as seen in the Z-film. It rebounds and therefore doesn’t show the relative speed to the bullet traveling through the head.
Utter rubbish.

Why do you think forensic ballistics experts use ballistic gel and ballistics soap in their testing? Go on, look it up.

Originally Posted by manifesto View Post
No. It decelerate/stops almost in the same instant that the bullet hits the head. After this, it starts accelerate in the opposite direction until coming to rest in Z321. Inertia.
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.

Originally Posted by manifesto View Post
The momentum transferred from an incoming soft point hunting bullet from in front to the right.
No. There was no impact from the front, there is no evidence to support that. Pure conjecture on your part

Originally Posted by manifesto View Post
No. Conjecture. You are assuming that a bullet hit from behind in Z312 and conjure from that. Teleologically. Not science.
No, just simple observation.
__________________
► 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, 01:11 PM   #3610
HSienzant
Illuminator
 
HSienzant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 4,023
Originally Posted by manifesto View Post
But I agree, Davis and Kounas should be removed from the ”knoll” category.
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."

Last edited by HSienzant; Yesterday at 01:33 PM.
HSienzant 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, 01:17 PM   #3611
bknight
Muse
 
bknight's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Location: Houston, Texas
Posts: 642
This was your contention: My contention is that the autopsy was controlled not by the pathologists but by high military brass for reasons of ”National Security”.
Quote:
One of the three autopsy doctors, Pierre Finck MD, was questioned during the Garrison trial against CIA’s Clay Shaw. When asked who was in charge of the autopsy ...
Finck replied that Humes actually stopped and asked, “Who is in charge here?” Finck then said he heard an Army General say, “I am.” Finck then added, “You must understand that in those circumstances, there were law enforcement officials, military people with various ranks, and you have to coordinate the operations according to directions” [ ... ]

When Oser asked if Finck felt he had to take orders from this Army General, the pathologist replied with: “No, because there were others, there were Admirals… . And when you are a Lieutenant Colonel in the Army you just follow orders.” He then testified that at the end of the procedure they were told not to discuss what had happened that night.
~ DiEugenio, Jim: 2013
All three doctors were employed by the military, doing the autopsy in a military hospital, Bethesda Naval Hospital.

In the military, you obey orders.
Yes they were military, but in this circumstance they were acting independently of the "General", they have to, since they have a higher oath than that of an officer. Did the General sign the autopsy? Did the general provide a consenting or adversarial comment concerning the autopsy. This is the flimsiest documentation
Quote:

Lol. The HSCA medical panel did agree on one thing, the autopsy with report was the most shoddy they had ever seen. And this was the autopsy of the assassinated US president.
Citation from the HCA report is required
Quote:

No, I think that they were less ”coached” when giving sworn testimony to the different investigations that came after the WC.

http://www.assassinationweb.com/ag6.htm

So, almost all of the almost 50 witnesses who observed JFK’s headwounds close up had a collective psychosis? Seeing a big gaping whole in the right back of JFK’s head that was not there? Forensic pathologists, senior neurosurgeons, trauma nurses, forensic photographers, FBI-agents, SS-agents, from three different hospitals and two different federal police agencies? Really?
Most of those included were not doctors and of those that were seemed rather dismissive of the wound at the back of the head. Of those in attendance at Parkland, never saw the back of his head, as they were trying to revive him. Only vague memories of what JFK looked like, injury wise.
Quote:

Plus more than 50 of the asked witnesses in Dealey Plaza saying they heard shots from in front?
And yet there was no evidence found in limo or the grass, and this is after an extensive search. Evidence was found aplenty from the shot from behind. There is nothing in Zapruder that indicates a shot from in front.
Quote:

The two world leading expert teams in acoustic ballistics finding five rifle shots on the DPD dictabelt, in perfect topographical order, at the time sequence when the shooting took place, at the same average speed as the motorcade on Elm and a fourth shot with additional sonar analysis showing a wooping P = 1/100 000 for not being a rifle shot fired from the picket fence on the knoll within a spot of ca 1 square yard?
The dictabelt recording has been found lacking, even the original investigators gave up, when no open mike could be were it needed to be. That still fails and recycling it will not make it true.
Quote:

Witnesses smelling gunsmoke around the fence after the shooting?

Witnesses seeing smoke coming down the knoll after the shooting?
Most modern weapons do not produce smoke so it could have been witnessed or smelled.
Quote:

Photographs of smoke over the knoll after the shooting?
A grainy image that can't be identified as to when it was taken or what it showed, try harder.
Quote:

Both chiefs of the DPD and the Sheriffs Department ordering their troops to the area behind the picket fence seconds after the shooting?
Please show your experience in running police departments. They were covering all the bases, policemen were sent to the TSBD, to the rail yard. etc. Nothing odd about that.
Quote:

Three police officers reporting SS-agents behind the fence and behind the TSBD just after the shooting in spite of no such agents in the area until about 20 minutes later when agent Sorrels arrived?
Did the officers get the names and badge numbers of the SS-agents?
Quote:

Multiple reports of intimidation and manipulation of witnesses and testimonies in order to make them conform to the fix that was in from the get go = one shooter and three shots from behind/TSBD?
Again a citation is required for this bare assertion.
Quote:

Supression of the information in the Zapruder film, showing the presidents head snapping violently back and to the left when hit by the fatal bullet?
We have been through this with you, Time only had the print rights, the Kennedy's had/have control of most of the material.
Quote:

LIFE Magazine lying when stating that JFK turned around almost 180˚ when hit in throat in spite of owning the very film showing no such turn around? To explain away the Parkland doctors statement of a typical small, round and punctuated entrance wound in the throat —-> shot from in front?
Zapruder did not film the throat wound, behind the road sign. The doctors at Parkland were not forensic pathologists, so the wound could have been an entrance wound or exit, but it provided easy access to perform the tracheotomy.
Quote:

Sorry but I see a guy in front of me, hands covering the ears and eyes tight shut, jumping up and down screeming very loud:

- ”No no no lalalala ignore ignore lalala nonono ... !!!!”

Correct?
You are obviously looking in a mirror at yourself.
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 Yesterday, 01:18 PM   #3612
manifesto
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 1,096
Thumbs up

Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
Pretty much pointless arguing with these people.
Correct, these guys will never admit to anything not sanctioned by US National Security State. And, it has nothing to do with ”scientific skepticism”. Nothing. But, this is important to show. To expose.

Keep exposing
__________________
"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, 01:23 PM   #3613
manifesto
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 1,096
Originally Posted by BStrong View Post
Willful ignorance makes for friendly bedfellows.
True.

Quote:
Might want to remember you're not in your own house and don't make the rules. I've been dinged here and deservedly so - I also don't feel the need to whine about it.
Own house? Is this a private forum for members only? Not public?
__________________
"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, 01:27 PM   #3614
HSienzant
Illuminator
 
HSienzant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 4,023
Originally Posted by manifesto View Post
But I agree, Davis and Kounas should be removed from the ”knoll” category.
Ok. We agree, I thing, 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 knoll 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 observrd 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 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:
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.
Mr. BALL - Was he pointing?
Miss. MITCHELL - I am almost sure that he was because I was trying to figure out exactly where he was [pointing].


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 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.

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?


Originally Posted by manifesto View Post
Once again. My contention is that the number of asked witness who said shot/s were fired from in front/knoll is greater than that for from behind/TSBD.
And I say if we count the witnesses fairly and honestly, and not with bias for the knoll and without utilizing logical fallacies like begging the question, the knoll total goes way down and the TSBD total goes up. We've seen thus far the total go from 52-48 to 49-49. Right?

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

Last edited by HSienzant; Yesterday at 03:08 PM.
HSienzant 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, 01:33 PM   #3615
manifesto
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 1,096
Originally Posted by Axxman300 View Post
Proven where?

There is no exit wound in the back of the head visible in any of the films.

It doesn't exist.

Here is the most recent scientific study specifically of the movement of JFK's head when he was SHOT FROM BEHIND:

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

I doubt you will read it, you can't use crayons.
Cite, explain and argue. Can’t do it for you. You should know this by now.
__________________
"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, 01:40 PM   #3616
RoboTimbo
Hostile Nanobacon
 
RoboTimbo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Perfection, NV
Posts: 28,877
Originally Posted by manifesto View Post
Correct, these guys will never admit to anything not sanctioned by US National Security State. And, it has nothing to do with ”scientific skepticism”. Nothing. But, this is important to show. To expose.

Keep exposing
I've admitted that you and MicahJava are the least knowledgeable people in the thread about the assassination. I admit that you CTs refuse to answer questions that destroy your arguments.

I agree with your admission that you are unable to provide compelling evidence for your arguments and are powerless to move the needle on the null hypothesis and it makes you furious.
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, 02:21 PM   #3617
BStrong
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 11,185
Originally Posted by manifesto View Post
One of the three autopsy doctors, Pierre Finck MD, was questioned during the Garrison trial against CIA’s Clay Shaw. When asked who was in charge of the autopsy ...
That failed to convict Shaw. So much for that as evidence.

Originally Posted by manifesto View Post
All three doctors were employed by the military, doing the autopsy in a military hospital, Bethesda Naval Hospital.

In the military, you obey orders.
Still not enough for a conviction, and a superior officer ordering someone to lie in front of witnesses isn't exactly a criminal genius. Want a real world example of a military officer entering into a conspiracy to commit murder?

Robert Rheault:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Rheault

All U.S. Army Special Forces, in 1969, operated under the control of 5th Special Forces Group, headquartered at Nha Trang, on the southeast coast of South Vietnam, and there was a close relationship with the CIA that complicated the chain of command and philosophy of rules of engagement.[6]

Colonel Rheault took command of 5th in May 1969 and his unit was charged with seeking out leaks in a CIA-directed espionage ring as part of Project GAMMA. Rheault, along with six of his Special Forces officers and a sergeant were arrested by the U.S. Military under the orders of General Creighton Abrams and threatened with court-martial charges of murder and conspiracy to commit murder, arising from the alleged extrajudicial killing of Thai Khac Chuyen, a Vietnamese double agent for the Americans and the North Vietnamese.[1][7]

The investigation and court-martial, held by the U.S. Army in Vietnam, rapidly became engulfed in a firestorm of media publicity. Most of the American public, and the Special Forces, believed that Colonel Rheault and all involved had been made scapegoats for a matter that reflected poorly upon the Army.[8] The view that there was no wrongdoing by the soldiers was probably best stated by Rheault's 11-year-old son, Robert, Jr. who upon learning of his father's arrest said, "What is all the fuss about? I thought that was what dad was in Vietnam for...to kill Viet Cong".[3]

However, the prosecution provided testimony showing that Chuyen was shot by Rheault's officers and his body dumped into the South China Sea. Further, they argued that Rheault was most certainly aware of the provisions of the Third Geneva Convention on the treatment of prisoners of war and Article 118 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice. He approved the execution of Chuyen, and also approved the cover story that Chuyen was lost on an undercover mission designed to prove his loyalty to South Vietnam and the United States.[1]

Judge Advocate General Captain John Stevens Berry called General Abrams and CIA officials to the witness stand, but both declined to testify. Finally in September 1969 the Secretary of the Army Stanley Resor announced to all that all charges would be dropped against the soldiers since the CIA, in the interests of national security, had refused to make its personnel available as witnesses. On October 31, 1969, upon ascertaining that further military commands and promotions were not likely, Colonel Rheault requested immediate retirement from the Army. All others charged in the affair also had their careers effectively ended, and left the service soon afterwards. The U.S. government later paid the widow of the Vietnamese agent a small pension, quelling her emotional protests outside the American Embassy in Saigon. If there had been a trial, defense lawyer F. Lee Bailey said later, "the defendants would have become Abrams, (CIA Director Richard) Helms and Nixon. The only winner would have been North Vietnam."[3][8]


In CTist world, THEY™ can kill POTUS in broad daylight in front of god and everybody and get away clean (except for the wily CTists that can Connect The Dots™ and Read Between the Lines™) but the Commanding Officer of the 5th Special Forces Group, in the middle of a war, in a zone can't get away clean with shooing a double agent in the head and throwing his body into the South China Sea because the body had the bad manners to wash up on shore.

The Robert Rheault story has verisimilitude. Manifesto el al various versions do not.

Originally Posted by manifesto View Post
The two world leading expert teams in acoustic ballistics finding five rifle shots on the DPD dictabelt, in perfect topographical order, at the time sequence when the shooting took place, at the same average speed as the motorcade on Elm and a fourth shot with additional sonar analysis showing a wooping P = 1/100 000 for not being a rifle shot fired from the picket fence on the knoll within a spot of ca 1 square yard?
If you're referencing the "two world leading expert teams," please provide the name of the third place team and how the teams received their respective ratings, and from who they received their ratings?.

The fact is you can't and won't answer that particular question because there are no such ratings and no such teams. It's a much loved term of art by CTists, much like 'Olympic Snipers" and "World Class Snipers." it means nothing but impresses the hell out of the uninformed.

Your beloved perfect dicta belt recording isn't worth much.

On ballistics acoustics in general, and I love that Scientific American put in into the Cocktail Party Physics section and the example cited is Starwars lore:

https://blogs.scientificamerican.com...cs-of-gunfire/

Okay, granted, nobody's done a bona fide study on sci-fi blasters, but acousticians Steven Beck (BAE Systems in Austin, Texas) and the FBI's own Hirotaka Nakasone have collaborated on a number of studies of gunshot recordings of various types of firearms, wit microphones placed in many different configurations and angles relative to the gun being tested. They've combined those findings with visual evidence (photographs of gunshots) to develop more accurate waveform models for forensic audio analysis of actual gunshot events.

A waveform is a kind of acoustic signature of a given sound. So waveforms can contain a lot of useful information for someone who's trained to interpret them, once there's a reliable catalog of waveforms associated with specific sounds, of course -- in this case, different kinds of gunshots at different ranges and angles. For instance, a trained analyst might be able to determine whether a sound is a gunshot or not, or how many guns were used, or -- most relevant for Star Wars fans -- who fired first.
...

Per Beck and Nakasone's lay language writeup for the conference: "Currently analysts use simple blast waveform models and cross correlation techniques to study acoustic gunshot waveforms and try to answer basic forensic questions." However, "There are many variables that can affect recorded gunshot signals and forensic audio analysts need to be aware of their influence on the resulting waveforms." That's why the two acousticians performed so many different kinds of studies of recordings made in both the lab and the field, trying to take into account the many, many factors and conditions that could change a waveform in significant ways, and make it less accurate (and hence less useful) for forensic purposes.

The resulting waveforms matched closely with their theoretical models, at least for the high-quality recordings they made themselves in the lab, with top-notch equipment. Beck and Nakasone acknowledge that for real-world purposes, the kinds of gunshot recordings an acoustic analyst encounters are likely to be done with handheld devices like cell phones, with a lot of background noise. "Waveforms recorded under more realistic conditions can vary significantly -- even to the point of being unrecognizable and forensically unusable," they admitted in their lay language paper.


Dict belt recordings would be the full opposite of "high-quality."

From the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine Report of the Committee on Ballistic Acoustics, (study of the dicta belt recordings) Executive Summary

https://www.nap.edu/read/10264/chapter/2

In response to a request from the Department of Justice, the National Research Council Committee on Ballistic Acoustics has over the past year studied these reports and the Dallas Police recording on which they are based.

Since the recorded acoustic impulses are similar to static, efforts to attribute them to gunshots have depended on echo analyses; but in these analyses desirable control tests were omitted, some of the analyses depended on subjective selection of data, serious errors were made in some of the statistical calculations, incorrect statistical conclusions were drawn and the analysis methods used were novel in some aspects and were untested at such high levels of background noise. Furthermore, some of the recorded background sounds, such as the delay in the sounds of police sirens, are not what one would expect if the open microphone had been in the motorcade. For these and other reasons discussed in the report, the Committee concluded that the previous acoustic analyses do not demonstrate that there was a grassy knoll shot. The Committee reached this conclusion prior to the availability of conclusive evidence (which we now describe) that the acoustic impulses were recorded on Channel I approximately one minute after the assassination....

The Committee report lists a number of possible further studies of the Channel I recording and of related matters, but, because of the strength of the demonstration that the acoustical evidence for a grassy knoll shot is
invalid, the Committee believes that the results to be expected from such studies would not justify their cost.

For these reasons and for others given in detail in the report, the National Research Council Committee on Ballistic Acoustics unanimously concludes that:

— The acoustic analyses do not demonstrate that there was a grassy knoll shot, and in particular there is no acoustic basis for the claim of 95% probability of such a shot.

— The acoustic impulses attributed to gunshots were recorded about one minute after the President had been shot and the motorcade had been instructed to go to the hospital.

— Therefore, reliable acoustic data do not support a conclusion that there was a second gunman.


Another CTist pipe dream shattered.

Originally Posted by manifesto View Post
Witnesses smelling gunsmoke around the fence after the shooting?
Humans sense of smell can't discern between burnt nitrates. I've smelled just about sll of them and I'd be hard put to tell the difference between smokeless v black powder if all I have to go on was smell.

Originally Posted by manifesto View Post
Witnesses seeing smoke coming down the knoll after the shooting?
Modern powder is smokeless. Single shots don't produce smoke. Go back to the videos I posted that you want to ignore and observe how much "Smoke" is produced by those single shots out of the rifle, and even how much smoke is produced by multiple shots from the .44 magnum revolver - shorter barrel ( 6.5 inches in that Smith) would produce more "smoke" if smoke was much of a by-product from firing. Little bit of flash at the cylinder gap at the last two rounds but that's it.

Originally Posted by manifesto View Post
Photographs of smoke over the knoll after the shooting?
See above. Maybe time travel allowed a platoon of Confederate riflemen to time travel and volley fire at JFK, or then again, maybe not

Originally Posted by manifesto View Post
Both chiefs of the DPD and the Sheriffs Department ordering their troops to the area behind the picket fence seconds after the shooting?
SOP - you order officers to every point of the compass whether you're in the know or not. It's generally referred to as C.Y.A.

Originally Posted by manifesto View Post
Three police officers reporting SS-agents behind the fence and behind the TSBD just after the shooting in spite of no such agents in the area until about 20 minutes later when agent Sorrels arrived?
As often as you accuse everyone that disagrees with you or has facts to refute your assertions as being wrong I'd reasonably believe that you might be familiar with the concept, but I forgot that in CTist world the only individuals that are capable of being wrong are the ones that disagree with you.

Originally Posted by manifesto View Post
Multiple reports of intimidation and manipulation of witnesses and testimonies in order to make them conform to the fix that was in from the get go = one shooter and three shots from behind/TSBD?
See above, and in CTist world, the only stories that ever vary are the ones that would tend to bolster conspiracy, regardless of source.

Originally Posted by manifesto View Post
Supression of the information in the Zapruder film, showing the presidents head snapping violently back and to the left when hit by the fatal bullet?
The family didn't want their father's murder to be entertainment. That put a real crimp into CTists but evidently hasn't restricted your entertainment factor.

Originally Posted by manifesto View Post
LIFE Magazine lying when stating that JFK turned around almost 180˚ when hit in throat in spite of owning the very film showing no such turn around? To explain away the Parkland doctors statement of a typical small, round and punctuated entrance wound in the throat —-> shot from in front?
A magazine got it wrong! reporters and editors don't need anyone's help *********** up stories. google to your heart's content.

Originally Posted by manifesto View Post
Sorry but I see a guy in front of me, hands covering the ears and eyes tight shut, jumping up and down screeming very loud:

- ”No no no lalalala ignore ignore lalala nonono ... !!!!”

Correct?
No, but it's par for the course

Failures of fact and logic noted above, and when are you going to address those inconvenient videos of projectile impacts on live human beings?
__________________
"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

Last edited by BStrong; Yesterday at 02:43 PM.
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, 02:24 PM   #3618
BStrong
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 11,185
Originally Posted by manifesto View Post
True.

Own house? Is this a private forum for members only? Not public?
We're all guests here and are expected to conform to the rules of the Membership Agreement.

Some folks are incapable of complying. Some people whine about it.
__________________
"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, 02:31 PM   #3619
jeffas69
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 397
Deleted

Last edited by jeffas69; Yesterday at 02:32 PM. Reason: Ninja
jeffas69 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, 02:33 PM   #3620
BStrong
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 11,185
Originally Posted by manifesto View Post
Cite, explain and argue. Can’t do it for you. You should know this by now.
Nicholas Nalli's study disproves allegations by Hollywood trained hobbyist terminal ballistic experts that JFK's head movement was caused by an impact from the front:

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

It's not the first time:

https://www.npr.org/2013/11/22/24673...-cold-case-jfk

I love this quote from the interview:

FLATOW:

Michael, let's talk about the fatal head shot. What happened there?

HAAG:

I think one of the things that causes people a lot of confusion is the difference in the effect of the two different shots to the president, the one that strikes basically just soft tissue and the one that strikes his head. And unfortunately in this country and around the world, the majority of what the common populace believes about firearms is obtained - or education is obtain from TV and other illegitimate sources that really aren't doing - this really isn't doing the population any favors.
__________________
"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, 02:38 PM   #3621
bknight
Muse
 
bknight's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Location: Houston, Texas
Posts: 642
Originally Posted by manifesto View Post
Cite, explain and argue. Can’t do it for you. You should know this by now.
It is cited, but we can't read it for you, so do your homework. Quit be lazy and open it up and read the material.
PS I shreds your contention of a shooter in front of JFK.
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 Yesterday, 02:41 PM   #3622
BStrong
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 11,185
Originally Posted by bknight View Post
Science profoundly rejects manifesto's bare assertion of blood spatter travelling faster than the bullet itself.
It's right up there with the poster in this thread that asserted that the sound associated with the muzzle blast of a round being fired is caused by the projectile's movement through air and not the expanding hot gases that propel the projectile.

It doesn't rise to the level of the poster who asserted that a headspace gauge is a tool for determining when and if a firearm has been fired, but I don't expect that high water mark of ignorance to ever be topped.
__________________
"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, 03:08 PM   #3623
Axxman300
Master Poster
 
Axxman300's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Central California Coast
Posts: 2,748
Originally Posted by manifesto View Post
2. The spattter visible in Z313 is traveling faster than the incoming bullet so it is almost instant = the bullet hits the head in Z313 or a couple of hundredths of seconds before.
I guess the reason we're stunned by this is we wonder if you're really dumb enough to believe this. It is physically impossible for a long list of reasons.


Quote:
Ergo. The Z312 - Z321 is fully consistent with a bullet from in front to the right (direction of momentum).
No, and we have cited two sources that show this is nonsense.

Quote:
The next question is how much momentum that would have to be transferred in order to explain the head movement between Z313 and Z321. An ordinarie Winchester rifle with .30-30 soft point ammo could have easily done the job.
Please post a link for the source of this one because whomever it is needs to have his guns taken away for being too stupid to be around firearms let lone own own one.


Quote:
Proven bogus and a proven scientific fraud willfully fabricated by Luis Alvarez in order to explain away the head violently snapping back and to the left = shot from in front to the right, which the American public came to know 13 years after the fact thanks to Jim Garrison and Geraldo Rivera who showed a copy of the Zapruder film in prime time National TV.
Translation: Two stupid people think something is true and then a scientist shows up to explain why it's not true and ruins the party.

Quote:
In comes the ”Nobel Prize-winner”, Luis Alvarez.

The same happened a couple of years later when HSCA’s acoustic evidence became known. In comes the ”Nobel Prize-winner”, Luis Alvarez.
It wasn't Alvarez alone, but he has a non-white last name making him easy for you to target.

Quote:
Alvarez who is also known for covering up the Israeli nuclear weapons tests in the south Indian ocean. Busy carrying water for the US National Security State since his work in the Manhattan Project, developing the bombs who exploded over Japan in 1945.
Hell yes they exploded over Japan. Not seeing what this has to do with JFK, just exposing yourself as fascist sympathizer.

Quote:
Lol. Rebounds. No, the brace was of cloth and had very little if any effect on JFK’s posture before or after being hit.
Said the guy who's never worn a back brace.

Quote:
Yes, my contention is that shot/s from in front were covered up in order to lay all blame on the patsy. To protect the guilty men/women who were the real assassins. Yes.
You can relax, Oswald is dead.

Quote:
As I said, invoking his Nobel Prize all the time has the opposite effect, it shows that you have little faith in the actual science. If not, show me the science.
We've shown you the science. It supports a lone gunman, and points to Oswald. You ignore it out of vanity.


Quote:
It is not me who has to find facts or arguments in defence of your assertions, Hank.

You know this.
Hank and all of us know that you have no facts. Other than JKF getting shot you have yet to present any.
__________________
Disingenuous Piranha
Axxman300 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, 03:09 PM   #3624
Axxman300
Master Poster
 
Axxman300's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Central California Coast
Posts: 2,748
Originally Posted by manifesto View Post
Cite, explain and argue. Can’t do it for you. You should know this by now.
Oh no, you're the expert here. You wanted science, I give you science that proves the shot came from behind. Do some honest work for once.
__________________
Disingenuous Piranha
Axxman300 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, 03:24 PM   #3625
Axxman300
Master Poster
 
Axxman300's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Central California Coast
Posts: 2,748
Originally Posted by manifesto View Post
One of the three autopsy doctors, Pierre Finck MD, was questioned during the Garrison trial against CIA’s Clay Shaw. When asked who was in charge of the autopsy ...
Finck replied that Humes actually stopped and asked, “Who is in charge here?” Finck then said he heard an Army General say, “I am.” Finck then added, “You must understand that in those circumstances, there were law enforcement officials, military people with various ranks, and you have to coordinate the operations according to directions” [ ... ]

When Oser asked if Finck felt he had to take orders from this Army General, the pathologist replied with: “No, because there were others, there were Admirals… . And when you are a Lieutenant Colonel in the Army you just follow orders.” He then testified that at the end of the procedure they were told not to discuss what had happened that night.
~ DiEugenio, Jim: 2013
Not true. Humes said he was in charge.

Quote:
All three doctors were employed by the military, doing the autopsy in a military hospital, Bethesda Naval Hospital.

In the military, you obey orders.
They were ordered to do the autopsy, not lie about it.

Quote:
Lol. The HSCA medical panel did agree on one thing, the autopsy with report was the most shoddy they had ever seen. And this was the autopsy of the assassinated US president.
Not true at all.

Quote:
So, almost all of the almost 50 witnesses who observed JFK’s headwounds close up had a collective psychosis?
Something like that.

Quote:
Forensic pathologists, senior neurosurgeons, trauma nurses, forensic photographers, FBI-agents, SS-agents, from three different hospitals and two different federal police agencies? Really?
Okay, so you just wrote that the doctors were coached to lie under oath, but somehow everyone else could say whatever they wanted without repercussion? Dumb.

Quote:
Plus more than 50 of the asked witnesses in Dealey Plaza saying they heard shots from in front?
Doesn't matter, the other 200 heard the shots coming from behind.

Quote:
The two world leading expert teams in acoustic ballistics finding five rifle shots on the DPD dictabelt, in perfect topographical order, at the time sequence when the shooting took place, at the same average speed as the motorcade on Elm and a fourth shot with additional sonar analysis showing a wooping P = 1/100 000 for not being a rifle shot fired from the picket fence on the knoll within a spot of ca 1 square yard?
We've covered this. They were wrong. The microphone was not in Dealey Plaza. Game over.

Quote:
Witnesses smelling gunsmoke around the fence after the shooting?
Yes, all from the motorcade as they DROVE UNDER THE 6th FLOOR OF THE TSBD. I wonder why?

Quote:
Witnesses seeing smoke coming down the knoll after the shooting?
Technically impossible, and it was only ONE WITNESS from 100 yars away in front of the Post Office.

Quote:
Photographs of smoke over the knoll after the shooting?
There are none.

Quote:
Both chiefs of the DPD and the Sheriffs Department ordering their troops to the area behind the picket fence seconds after the shooting?
You mean as if nobody knew what was going on? Also, if it was seconds after then why didn't they catch anyone?

Quote:
Three police officers reporting SS-agents behind the fence and behind the TSBD just after the shooting in spite of no such agents in the area until about 20 minutes later when agent Sorrels arrived?
He was a Treasury Officer.

Quote:
Supression of the information in the Zapruder film, showing the presidents head snapping violently back and to the left when hit by the fatal bullet?
Never happened.

Quote:
LIFE Magazine lying when stating that JFK turned around almost 180˚ when hit in throat in spite of owning the very film showing no such turn around? To explain away the Parkland doctors statement of a typical small, round and punctuated entrance wound in the throat —-> shot from in front?
LIFE Magazine was not a legal document. And forensics shows the throat wound to be an exit wound. Again, long settled.

Quote:
Sorry but I see a guy in front of me, hands covering the ears and eyes tight shut, jumping up and down screeming very loud:

- ”No no no lalalala ignore ignore lalala nonono ... !!!!”

Correct?
If you're standing in front of a mirror then yes.
__________________
Disingenuous Piranha
Axxman300 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, 03:30 PM   #3626
Axxman300
Master Poster
 
Axxman300's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Central California Coast
Posts: 2,748
Originally Posted by manifesto View Post
The point is. The x-ray photos are forgeries or all of the medical and police personel in three different hospitals and two federal agencies, who saw JFK’s headwounds close up, had a mysterious collective psychosis not known to science.

Take your pick.
Well, those stories mostly come from Assassination Conspiracy authors and their accounts were not written honestly by those authors, which explains why they often deny having said the things those books claim they said.

And the psychosis is called Munchhausen's by Proxy wherein the conspiracy theorist inserts him or herself into the JFK legend, and becoming (in their mind) equally as important by becoming a crusader for the truth by shining light on an non-existent plot to murder the President in the dumbest scenario in history.
__________________
Disingenuous Piranha
Axxman300 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, 03:35 PM   #3627
Axxman300
Master Poster
 
Axxman300's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Central California Coast
Posts: 2,748
Originally Posted by manifesto View Post
Correct, these guys will never admit to anything not sanctioned by US National Security State. And, it has nothing to do with ”scientific skepticism”. Nothing. But, this is important to show. To expose.

Keep exposing
You are the guy doing the CIA's work for them.

You've made them into a super-human force.
__________________
Disingenuous Piranha
Axxman300 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, 03:52 PM   #3628
Axxman300
Master Poster
 
Axxman300's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Central California Coast
Posts: 2,748
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
Pretty much pointless arguing with these people. They will report and ban you for stupid stuff before showing an honest bone in their body. Quickly, before we get a page full of "well preferably you're not supposed to see any bone in your body".
Guess what? I'm an old-school ghost hunter and I've been on this board for a few years now with no problems.

Would you like to know my secret?

I don't start threads or post claims I can't back up.

I can't tell people ghosts are real without having some kind of solid evidence, and data that can be recreated in a lab. I can't defend my position by playing the "But what if" game, or moving the goal posts each time I lose.

I cannot prove ghosts are real based on eye-witness testimony or ear-witness testimony or posting grainy pictures...does that sound familiar?

I can blow smoke better than you or Manifesto could ever dream of; I can post pseudo science, and old legends about Soviet scientists, and even drag out the CIA's remote viewing program...but it's all nothing more than electronic toilet paper. All that matters is what can be proved, and I cannot prove ghosts exist.

*technically I don't believe ghosts are spirits of the dead, but an involuntary neurological response to external stimulus, but I lack the science to even defend that point of view*

So when I come here and read a bunch of JFK assassination folklore I smile knowing I've dodged a bullet. Just because you want a conspiracy doesn't make it so. And because you've trained your mind to look for conspiracy you now see them everywhere just like people who believe in ghosts see ghosts everywhere.

Maybe you should think about that some time.
__________________
Disingenuous Piranha

Last edited by Axxman300; Yesterday at 03:54 PM.
Axxman300 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, 04:19 PM   #3629
HSienzant
Illuminator
 
HSienzant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 4,023
Originally Posted by Axxman300 View Post
Guess what? I'm an old-school ghost hunter and I've been on this board for a few years now with no problems.

Would you like to know my secret?

I don't start threads or post claims I can't back up.

I can't tell people ghosts are real without having some kind of solid evidence, and data that can be recreated in a lab. I can't defend my position by playing the "But what if" game, or moving the goal posts each time I lose.

I cannot prove ghosts are real based on eye-witness testimony or ear-witness testimony or posting grainy pictures...does that sound familiar?

I can blow smoke better than you or Manifesto could ever dream of; I can post pseudo science, and old legends about Soviet scientists, and even drag out the CIA's remote viewing program...but it's all nothing more than electronic toilet paper. All that matters is what can be proved, and I cannot prove ghosts exist.

*technically I don't believe ghosts are spirits of the dead, but an involuntary neurological response to external stimulus, but I lack the science to even defend that point of view*

So when I come here and read a bunch of JFK assassination folklore I smile knowing I've dodged a bullet. Just because you want a conspiracy doesn't make it so. And because you've trained your mind to look for conspiracy you now see them everywhere just like people who believe in ghosts see ghosts everywhere.

Maybe you should think about that some time.


One could substitute UFOs or mermaids or Bermuda Triangle or 911 or Holocaust denial or spontaneous human combustion or ESP and it would make the point as well.

These folks see what they want to see and believe what they want to believe and nothing can convince them otherwise.

Hank
__________________
"Looks like we're really in nut country now, Toto."
HSienzant 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, 04:29 PM   #3630
BStrong
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 11,185
Originally Posted by smartcooky View Post

Snipped with respect


It might interest you to know that

► David Brinkley (NBC News) reported it was 7.65 Mauser

► An unnamed (ABC News) TV reporter at the TSBD ABC reported it was a British (Lee-Enfield) .303 rifle

► Bob Walker (WFAA-TV Dallas) reported it was a .25cal Japanese Rifle of unspecified make.

► Walter Cronkite (CBS) reported it was a 3030 rifle
The above conforms exactly to the standard of uninformed weapon identifications. Observers make identifications based on visual cues they remember from different situations or make it up out of the whole cloth.

The typical 7.65 Mauser and British Enfield rifles uses a magazine housing/trigger housing that can be mistaken for the Carcano, the various Japanese Arisaka rifles of WWII do not but share a common caliber (6.5) designation so there's at least some possible common ground involved, but Cronkite and the 30/30 is so out of left field how is it possible?

Easy.

Untrained observers habitually make the mistake of believing every different type of a given firearm is all one type.

Every hunting rifle is either a 30/30 or a 30-06.

Every large revolver is a .44 Magnum.

Every large automatic pistol is a Colt .45, nowadays it's a Glock.

Every shotgun is a 12 gauge.

Every semi-auto rifle with a detachable magazine is an AR or AK. I've posted an account of an individual who insisted the HK 41 (unrelated in every way to the AK) I was firing was an AK...even when I pointed out the manufacturer's engraving on the receiver:

__________________
"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

Last edited by BStrong; Yesterday at 04:35 PM.
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, 05:03 PM   #3631
MicahJava
Master Poster
 
MicahJava's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 2,688
Originally Posted by BStrong View Post
That failed to convict Shaw. So much for that as evidence.
MicahJava 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, 05:23 PM   #3632
BStrong
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 11,185
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
If that's your most cogent response, I guess it stands.
__________________
"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, 05:54 PM   #3633
smartcooky
Philosopher
 
smartcooky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Nelson, New Zealand
Posts: 7,941
Originally Posted by manifesto View Post
Funny that you are posting a gif confirming my statement. Look at where the bullet enters the gel block. The gel travels outward = back spatters at the instant the bullet enters the block.
No. It seems that you know nothing about terminal ballistics.

What we see there (the movement of ballistics gel toward the direction from which the bullet has come) is not splatter, it is cratering caused by the impact of the bullet on a SOFT surface. If we were to attach a piece of heavy card or plywood up against the entry point on the ballistics gel, (to simulate the bullet entering a skull) you would not get any detectable cratering.

Originally Posted by manifesto View Post
That said, the gel is not watery blood which continues outward as seen in the Z-film. It rebounds and therefore doesn’t show the relative speed to the bullet travelling through the head.
I take it back, it doesn't just seem that you know nothing about terminal ballistics. Its a fact... you don't.

I suggest you look up the reason why forensic ballistics experts use ballistics gel and ballistics soap when doing impact analyses.

Originally Posted by manifesto View Post
No. It decelerate/stops almost in the same instant that the bullet hits the head. After this, it starts accelerate in the opposite direction until coming to rest in Z321. Inertia.

I think we can add high-school level physics to the list of subjects you know nothing about.

It is clear, and obvious from William Seger's gif I posted earlier post #3583 that JFK's head moves backwards to a greater degree in each subsequent frame Z314, Z315, Z316, Z317. It means his head is moving backwards faster and faster in each frame. This is called "acceleration". Acceleration cannot occur if a force is not being constantly applied to his head. Impact from a bullet might start his head rocking backwards, but it cannot continue to apply a force.

If JFK was hit from the front shortly before Z313, by a bullet travelling at 2500 fps, by the time of Z314 (1/18 of a second later) the bullet has either stopped inside the skull (in which case, it can no longer apply a force) or it passed through and is over 100 feet beyond JFKs head (in which case, it can no longer apply a force).

Originally Posted by manifesto View Post
The momentum transferred from an incoming soft point hunting bullet from in front to the right.
Momentum transfer can only account for the initial movement of an object NOT its continued acceleration; the latter requires continuing application of a force.

Originally Posted by manifesto View Post
No. Conjecture. You are assuming that a bullet hit from behind in Z312 and conjure from that. Teleologically. Not science.
No, simple observation.

I see a beer can struck by a bullet. The can disappears off to the right, I know that the bullet must have been fired from the left.

In the case of JFK's head, we clearly see his head move to the right of screen (forwards). I do not need to assume that there is a shot from the left of screen (behind), I deduce that from the observation.
__________________
► 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 07:33 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 Today, 08:06 AM   #3634
HSienzant
Illuminator
 
HSienzant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 4,023
Originally Posted by smartcooky View Post
I see a beer can struck by a bullet. The can disappears off to the right, I know that the bullet must have been fired from the left.

In the case of JFK's head, we clearly see his head move to the right of screen (forwards). I do not need to assume that there is a shot from the left of screen (behind), I deduce that from the observation.
When CTs thought the Zapruder film showed a backward movement only, we were lectured about how Newtonian physics was all that's required -- "in a shooting gallery, the ducks fall away from the shooter", we ere told.

Now that it's apparent JFK's head moves forward first, Newtonian physics isn't sufficient. Or even understood by CTs, apparently. So we get the mashup that Manifesto presents as the 'new and improved' explanation. And we see him denigrate not one but TWO Nobel Prize winning physicists (Feynman and Alvarez) who independently reached the same conclusion -- the head moves forward as the result of a bullet strike to the head. And then we get the sure to follow ad hominem attack on both men, the expected reaction because Manifesto isn't able to rebut the conclusions of these two men.

Hank
__________________
"Looks like we're really in nut country now, Toto."
HSienzant 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, 12:48 PM   #3635
smartcooky
Philosopher
 
smartcooky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Nelson, New Zealand
Posts: 7,941
Originally Posted by HSienzant View Post
When CTs thought the Zapruder film showed a backward movement only, we were lectured about how Newtonian physics was all that's required -- "in a shooting gallery, the ducks fall away from the shooter", we ere told.

Now that it's apparent JFK's head moves forward first, Newtonian physics isn't sufficient. Or even understood by CTs, apparently. So we get the mashup that Manifesto presents as the 'new and improved' explanation. And we see him denigrate not one but TWO Nobel Prize winning physicists (Feynman and Alvarez) who independently reached the same conclusion -- the head moves forward as the result of a bullet strike to the head. And then we get the sure to follow ad hominem attack on both men, the expected reaction because Manifesto isn't able to rebut the conclusions of these two men.

Hank
A classic case of a CT trying to manipulate the evidence to fit the theory.

Further to that, we get presented this rubbish that Richard Feynman's area of expertise was quantum physics so he could not possibly be qualified to speak about, or have an opinion about, terminal ballistics (another area of ordinary physics), yet we are expected, as CT's do, to blindly accept that Donald Thomas' expertise in bugs and beetles, qualifies him speak about acoustics.

Figure that one out!
__________________
► 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; Today at 01:15 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
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 01:33 PM.
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.