Cont: JFK Conspiracy Theories VI: Lyndon Johnson's Revenge

[manifesto]

No, the claim was that spatter from the impact of a BULLET cannot travel faster than the BULLET.

Have a look at this high speed camera video of a bullet hitting a bloody sponge. https://youtu.be/bwMw6K96JqU

1. The back spatter begins forming ca 0.0004 seconds after the bullet hit the target. That is, instant.

2. The back spatter reaches further than the bullet if you look at it when the bullet is inside the sponge = moving faster than the bullet.

Ergo. The blood spatter seen in the Z313 is instant = the bullet hits the head at Z313, NOT in Z312.


Adding to that, the pattern and form of the blood spatter is that of a typical back spatter.

- Vide cone.

- Very small driplets = mist = ’halo’.

- Spatter travels relative short way, max 4 - 5 ft = backspatter.

 

[HSienzant]

Have a look at this high speed camera video of a bullet hitting a bloody sponge. https://youtu.be/bwMw6K96JqU

I had to question why you were citing the results of a bullet hitting a bloody sponge, which has nothing to do with what happened in the JFK assassination (JFK was struck in the head, not in the sponge), so I researched it a bit and found this abstract:

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/1556-4029.13713

Journal of Forensic Sciences
Cranial Backspatter Pattern Production Utilizing Human Cadavers
"The backspatter pattern produced by shooting an actual human head was found to be different than those of blood‐soaked sponges in the number of stains produced, the size and size range of the stains, and the stain dispersion patterns."

So I understand EXACTLY why you're citing videos of bullets striking bloody sponges - They have nothing to do with what happened to JFK during the assassination but they allow you to keep your argument alive while pretending you're citing something meaningful.

You're not. The above establishes that. The results from a bullet striking a sponge is different than the results of the bullet striking a human head. Citing what you did proves nothing, and is meaningless to the JFK assassination.

Your link: YouTube.
My link: A peer-reviewed science publication.

You lose.

Hank

 

[manifesto]

I had to question why you were citing the results of a bullet hitting a bloody sponge, which has nothing to do with what happened in the JFK assassination (JFK was struck in the head, not in the sponge), so I researched it a bit and found this abstract:

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/1556-4029.13713

Journal of Forensic Sciences
Cranial Backspatter Pattern Production Utilizing Human Cadavers
"The backspatter pattern produced by shooting an actual human head was found to be different than those of blood‐soaked sponges in the number of stains produced, the size and size range of the stains, and the stain dispersion patterns."

So I understand EXACTLY why you're citing videos of bullets striking bloody sponges - They have nothing to do with what happened to JFK during the assassination but they allow you to keep your argument alive while pretending you're citing something meaningful.

You're not. The above establishes that. The results from a bullet striking a sponge is different than the results of the bullet striking a human head.

Your link: YouTube.
My link: A peer-reviewed science publication.

You lose.

Hank

Looks like a paywall? Different? In what ways?

 

[HSienzant]

The blood spatter seen in the Z313 is instant = the bullet hits the head at Z313, NOT in Z312.

Straw man argument. Nobody here has argued that the bullet struck in Zapruder frame 312. The argument has always been that Z313 shows the result of the bullet strike and the bullet struck sometime after Z312 and sometime before or at Z313.

You are arguing against something nobody but you cares about or has ever suggested.

Your problem remains - the way to measure the force imparted to the head by the bullet is to determine the movement from the last frame before the impact (Z312) to the first frame showing the impact (Z313).

The comparison of those two frames shows the head is forced forward - consistent with a bullet strike on the head from behind. What happens to the head thereafter - after the bullet has already left the head and is somewhere downrange - can NOT be caused by the bullet. The bullet has already left the head by Z313.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5934694/

If you consult with Nobel Prize winning physicists like Luis Alvarez and Richard Feynman, they could tell you that.

Are you arguing for spooky effects at a distance?

Hank

 

[HSienzant]

Different? In what ways?

English comprehension problem? I understand you're from Europe but the abstract answers your question:

"The backspatter pattern produced by shooting an actual human head was found to be different than those of blood‐soaked sponges in the number of stains produced, the size and size range of the stains, and the stain dispersion patterns.".

Goodness, you're clearly grasping at straws now.

You need to pretend there's other issues not answered by the abstract. You should know how to play this game already. It's not about reaching a solution for conspiracy mongers, it's about keeping the conversation going so it appears you have a point.

But it's pretty obvious you don't.

Hank

 

[manifesto]

Decerebate posture, possibly including Opisthotonos.

https://medlineplus.gov/ency/article/003299.htm

Apply your data on JFK’s movements in between Z312 and Z321.

Cite. Explain. Argue your case.

 

[RoboTimbo]

Apply your data on JFK’s movements in between Z312 and Z321.

Cite. Explain. Argue your case.

What did the Warren Commission find? What are you claiming?

 

[Wolrab]

Why? You and MJ are the only ones unwilling to understand or learn. I wonder why?

 

[manifesto]

English comprehension problem? I understand you're from Europe but the abstract answers your question:

"The backspatter pattern produced by shooting an actual human head was found to be different than those of blood‐soaked sponges in the number of stains produced, the size and size range of the stains, and the stain dispersion patterns.".

Goodness, you're clearly grasping at straws now.

You need to pretend there's other issues not answered by the abstract. You should know how to play this game already. It's not about reaching a solution for conspiracy mongers, it's about keeping the conversation going so it appears you have a point.

But it's pretty obvious you don't.

Hank

Yes I understand what is said in the abstact, but in order to evaluate said ”differences” relevance for the blood spatter visible in Z313 I need more data.

conspiracy mongers,

What is most reprehensive in your universe, Hank? A vigilant citizenry or conspiracy crimes against democracy?

 

[RoboTimbo]

Yes I understand what is said in the abstact, but in order to evaluate said ”diggerences” relevance for the blood spatter visible in Z313 I need more data.

What have you done to learn anything about it?

What is most reprehensive in your universe, Hank? A vigilant citizenry or conspiracy crimes against democracy?

What is worse in your universe? Someone who knows so little and is unwilling to learn or the people who point out CT idiocy?

 

[manifesto]

Why? You and MJ are the only ones unwilling to understand or learn. I wonder why?

The reason there are so few critical thinkers in this thread is that there are a concerted effort to stamp out any trace of a civiliced discussion of the subject.

It is per design. I’m exposing it.

 

[RoboTimbo]

I’m exposing it.

You are definitely exposing something. Not at all what you think, but definitely something.

 

[Wolrab]

The reason there are so few critical thinkers in this thread is that there are a concerted effort to stamp out any trace of a civiliced discussion of the subject.

It is per design. I’m exposing it.

Wow. 90% of your post are demands for evidence that has already been provided, you handwaving away or ignoring evidence, and making unsupported assertions.

 

[HSienzant]

Yes I understand what is said in the abstact, but in order to evaluate said ”differences” relevance for the blood spatter visible in Z313 I need more data.

Well, you know where to find it, don't you? Or you can repeat the test for yourself. Report back with your findings. Be sure to document your work and show your data so we can 'evaluate' it.

Curiously, you didn't need to 'evaluate' any data to derive a whole lot of conclusions from a YouTube video, did you?

But when a science journal publishes something contrary to your beliefs, then you suddenly need more data to 'evaluate' all that, right? You understand people here see right through all these excuses, right?

What is most reprehensive in your universe, Hank? A vigilant citizenry or conspiracy crimes against democracy?

The logical fallacy of a false dilemma.

https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/94/False-Dilemma
"Description: When only two choices are presented yet more exist, or a spectrum of possible choices exists between two extremes. False dilemmas are usually characterized by “either this or that” language, but can also be characterized by omissions of choices."

You're obviously presenting us with only one real choice, because the other one isn't reprehensible at all.

You should know by now I would spot this logical fallacy and point it out. And since there's really only one choice, you're just Begging the Question once more - inserting as a given into your claim the very point you need to establish -- "conspiracy crimes against democracy".

I can reach a logical conclusion from your action here - you're desperate to continue the conversation on this point and thus see no recourse but to resort to logical fallacies to do so, because the facts are against you.

Hank

 

[manifesto]

You are definitely exposing something. Not at all what you think, but definitely something.

Well, why are you stalking me with your blue little idiot smileys from day one, if not for trying to harass me and make a mockery of everything I put forward.

You haven’t responded ONCE with a detailed critique of anything I have written so far. Only stalking, harassing and making a mockery.

I call this EXPOSING, yes.

 

[RoboTimbo]

make a mockery of everything I put forward.

Everything you put forward deserves only mockery.

blue little idiot smileys

As you wish.

 

[HSienzant]

Well, why are you stalking me with your blue little idiot smileys from day one, if not for trying to harass me and make a mockery of everything I put forward.

You haven’t responded ONCE with a detailed critique of anything I have written so far. Only stalking, harassing and making a mockery.

I call this EXPOSING, yes.

• When the facts are against you, pound the law.
• When the law is against you, pound the facts.
• When the facts and the law are against you, pound the table.

You're clearly pounding the table now.

Hank

 

[cmikes]

Well, why are you stalking me with your blue little idiot smileys from day one, if not for trying to harass me and make a mockery of everything I put forward.
You haven’t responded ONCE with a detailed critique of anything I have written so far. Only stalking, harassing and making a mockery.

I call this EXPOSING, yes.

Believe me, you don't need help from anyone else for the highlighted.

And for the record, a lot of posters have offered detailed critiques of your cribbed and recycled conspiracy claims, but you simply handwaved or ignored all the critiques. At a certain point, posters have to weigh putting forth the effort to respond to something that you're going to ignore completely versus just mocking you.

 

[manifesto]

• When the facts are against you, pound the law.
  When the law is against you, pound the facts.
  When the facts and the law are against you, pound the table.

You're clearly pounding the table now.

Hank

Is it your odd way of promoting stalking and harassments instead of detailed critique based on science and good arguments?

Or is this a ’privilege’ only reserved for ”RoboTimbo” and if so, why is that?

 

[manifesto]

Believe me, you don't need help from anyone else for the highlighted.

And for the record, a lot of posters have offered detailed critiques of your cribbed and recycled conspiracy claims, but you simply handwaved or ignored all the critiques. At a certain point, posters have to weigh putting forth the effort to respond to something that you're going to ignore completely versus just mocking you.

I dare you to find ONE post from ”RoboTimbo” containing detailed and substantiated critique.

One post.