Who killed Meredith Kercher? part 23

Status
Not open for further replies.
Vixen said:
Your faux 'outrage' and hysterical overkill are extremely boring. You are the type of person who believes SHOUTING and flowery adjectives win an argument.
Click to expand...


"I am the type of person......"? Be careful there, Vixen.

I realise it must be galling to have your so-called "arguments" in the realm of physics (specifically ballistics theory) so entirely demolished as the worthless gobbledegook nonsense that they are, but personal insults really are not the way forward. Mmmmmmkay? :D
 
By the way, Vixen, since you yourself bring it up as some sort of claim of credentials, would you care to tell us all the identity of "one of the top psychology departments in the country at the time" at which you studied? After all, you are making this claim, and I feel it's germane - if you're claiming expertise to support your credibility - to have some sort of evidence of the level of this expertise. If you feel uncomfortable naming the educational establishment in question, perhaps at least you would give us its status at the time you studied there (in order of prestige and seniority: Oxbridge university, top-10 UK university, 10-20 UK university, <20 UK university, polytechnic, remedial workshop).

Thanks in advance!
 
Vixen said:
I have been bowling many times and no sane person bowls over arm.
Click to expand...


As the saying goes: good for you.

And the question of people bowling overarm is - as you well know - entirely irrelevant here. Of course people do not bowl overarm. But if they wanted to, they could easily throw a bowling ball overarm several metres. And there's no question that a fit, healthy, athletic, young adult male could throw a 4.5kg rock some 2.5m over a horizontal span with sufficient power and accuracy to break a single-pane glass window at the other end of that 2.5m span. Which is germane and relevant, since it's exactly what Guede did on the evening of 1st November 2007 in Perugia.
 
Vixen said:
Grow up. It was Not Even Wrong who brought up the topic of bullets. I have to admit, that was not on my physics syllabus.
Click to expand...


"Grow up"? :p :thumbsup:

Whether or not "bullets" were on your physics syllabus (:D:D:D)......

....... pretty much every single "argument" you have written on these pages in respect of the physics of motion, ballistics theory, basic understanding of units and dimensions, and even the most simple physics concepts, has been categorically, unequivocally wrong. And not just simple-wrong: all kinds of wrong. So wrong it's genuinely astonishing to see such ignorance, endlessly compounded. Just so you know.
 
PhreePhly said:
Ok, I have just followed the past few pages of physics "lessons" by Vixen, and I need some clarification. She has claimed that she is a member of MENSA, correct? While her specialty is more in the direction of economics, not physics, she should still have some grasp of numbers and simple Newtonian physics, right. She has also claimed to have graduated with honors from some prestigious London college, right?

I ask, because I have worked with kids in some pretty rough neighborhoods here in Los Angeles, who could easily calculate the basic velocity, inertia, kinetic energy and even graph out the basic path of travel of this rock, using the high school physics they learned in their junior year. They would have made assumptions of neglecting air resistance, and would have assumed uniform force in the throwing arm, but they could have come up with some pretty good estimates.

I bring this up, because given the tremendous level of ignorance shown by this Vixen poster, why does anyone on this board giver her the time of day? If this is an example of her ability to reason, then why would anyone take any of her analysis seriously.
Click to expand...

Sometimes the best thing is to let people just dig themselves deeper.
 
Oscar News:

Peter Quennell reports:

Re Oscars. The 15 documentaries on the Oscar “long list” to be reduced by voting to five does not include Netflix’s “Amanda Knox”.

Not that this highly dishonest report deserves to be on any list of good works but we had been rather hoping that the Oscar people would be duped to get more attention to our coming media wars.
Click to expand...


For the list see here:

http://www.truejustice.org/ee/index...ting_today_on_pm_renzis_proposed_re/#comments


I expect 'The Ivory Game' will do well, simply because of all the hype surrounding Leonardo di Caprio.
 
Wilson85 said:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j_KqfWGmsL0&t=85



The glass is covered with a protective film. It is a demo video of a security company.

I posted the video to show you how easy it is to throw accurately a 4kg rock over a distance of 3m.
Click to expand...


No sign of the shutters covering the window, which Filomena is 100% adamant she pulled to. And the fact the back shards only go as far as the border of where the shutters would have been indicates she is factually correct.
 
"Peter Quennell reports"

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!! Priceless!!!
 
Vixen said:
No sign of the shutters covering the window, which Filomena is 100% adamant she pulled to. And the fact the back shards only go as far as the border of where the shutters would have been indicates she is factually correct.
Click to expand...


Ooh another straw man. Yet another. Marvellous!

Romanelli may well have pulled the exterior shutters to. But they did not - and could not - fasten shut. They would have been visibly ajar when viewed from the outside.

And Guede would have been able to see this clearly.

And Guede thus knew that Romanelli's window would offer a relatively quick and easy way into the cottage (all the other windows were either covered with iron grilles, were unfeasibly high from the ground and too difficult to climb to, or were (in the case of the rear balcony door and window) double-glazed with modern, strong plastic frames and secure locks - making it significantly more difficult for anyone to break the glass or force the frame).

And Guede therefore quickly climbed up and swung open the exterior shutters before dropping back down, walking round and up to the parapet, and throwing the rock through the now-exposed window.

How could this not be more obvious.......? (I suppose it's not allowed to be obvious if there are blinkered agendas at play, coupled with generally low intellect......)
 
Planigale said:
Sometimes the best thing is to let people just dig themselves deeper.
Click to expand...


I cannot deny: the sheer depth of the digging in this instance, as the "arguments" got filled with increasingly laughable ignorance of rather basic physics, was genuinely amusing as well as genuinely jaw-dropping. As well as providing even more information about the general quality and intellectual honesty of the "arguments" coming from that particular direction.
 
Vixen said:
No sign of the shutters covering the window, which Filomena is 100% adamant she pulled to. And the fact the back shards only go as far as the border of where the shutters would have been indicates she is factually correct.
Click to expand...

"the statement made by Romanelli on 12-3-2007 (“I had pulled the shutters, but I don’t think I closed them”)" Hellmann Report

Yes, she pulled them as far as the warped wood allowed her to. It was not possible to close them enough to latch them.

From Romanelli's testimony:

" The window was old and wouldn't close. I would have liked to have them replaced, also the shutters, maybe change the window or put bars on it like in Laura's room. It was used, old...warped. It gave me the sense of not being secure. Sometimes I thought even the wind could have opened the window. It didn't give me the feeling of being secure. I didn't feel it would stay closed, and I didn't like it."
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom