• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

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

Status
Not open for further replies.
What is it that you do not get? If YOU are claiming a certain studie debunks a certain studie it is YOU who need to show how this is really so. Not your opponent.

It is madness to demand this from your opponent. Madness. Crazy.

You said above that those two were not discussed. They were. You were given links to them then and you did not read them. You have not read either study have you? The writers of the studies are the ones claiming they debunk the others. I only suggested that you go read them. If you, as you claimed, are so well informed of the assassination then why would you not want to read them?

Again, what ”several points” are YOU talking about? Cite. Explain.

Try to make an argument which stands up to scrutiny. I neither shall or can do this for you. To demand this from me is madness. It is plain crazy.

Why don’t you get this? What is missing in your cognitive faculties?

IT IS NOT YOUR OPPONENT WHO SHALL FIND AND PRESENT SUPPORT FOR YOUR CLAIMS. IT IS YOU WHO HAVE TO DO THIS.

IF NOT, YOUR CLAIM IS UNSUBSTANTIATED AND REMAINS MINDLESS BABBLEING UNTIL YOU DO.

DO YOU UNDERSTAND?
You said you would read the study. You either did not read the entire study or you are pretending that you didn't understand it. The several points are clearly discussed in the study. There are mutiple sections that discuss much more than the motorcycle RPMs. I also asked for your take on another specific portion from that part that you also never responded to. Yell and scream in all caps til you hyperventilate for all I care. I had to repeat myself several times just to get a response out of you previously. In the middle of that you pretended that I was talking about something else. If I go through every detail you will handwave it away anyhow. I not going to hold your hand anymore and guide you through it. Go read them. You cannot "expose them" unless you do.
 
Last edited:
What is it that you do not get? If YOU are claiming a certain studie debunks a certain studie it is YOU who need to show how this is really so. Not your opponent.

It is madness to demand this from your opponent. Madness. Crazy.

You wandered in here touting your superior intellect and demanding hard science to back our claims, and we have provided you with links to the hard science. Now you're telling us you can't understand the science.

Again, what ”several points” are YOU talking about? Cite. Explain.

Go back and read the reports.

Try to make an argument which stands up to scrutiny. I neither shall or can do this for you. To demand this from me is madness. It is plain crazy.

Why don’t you get this? What is missing in your cognitive faculties?

You said you were well read. We're asking you to read something that's not from a CT website, something that has real science in it. Either you are up to the task or you are not.

IT IS NOT YOUR OPPONENT WHO SHALL FIND AND PRESENT SUPPORT FOR YOUR CLAIMS. IT IS YOU WHO HAVE TO DO THIS.

You demanded citations and links, and we have provided them. We will not spoon-feed you any more than we will burp you later. Do your homework.

IF NOT, YOUR CLAIM IS UNSUBSTANTIATED AND REMAINS MINDLESS BABBLEING UNTIL YOU DO.

Just admit you don't understand science, it's not a crime, but it is the only reason you have chosen to ignore the links we have provided.;)
 
I have in detail pointed out the flaws in your ”debunkings” and exposed them for what they are. Junk science in service to the US National Security State.

No. All you have done is quote the junk science of conspiracy loons like Donald Thomas.

What about DoJ and O’Dell? You haven’t explained how these two ”debunkings” works.

Could you do that?

Asked and answered.

Read through this thread and its predecessors where this has all been explained to you before (and where you summarily dismissed the explanations). I'm not going to spoon feed you again by going over it all again, time for you to grow up and feed yourself.
 
Now you're telling us you can't understand the science.

<polite snip>

Just admit you don't understand science, it's not a crime, but it is the only reason you have chosen to ignore the links we have provided.;)

I'll bet he doesn't even understand the methodology behind the analysis of the sounds on the dictabelt (those that were claimed to be gunfire) and why the microphone has to be in certain places at certain times. If he did, he would understand why the dictabelt evidence in total hogwash.
 
Last edited:
IT IS NOT YOUR OPPONENT WHO SHALL FIND AND PRESENT SUPPORT FOR YOUR CLAIMS.

I think what people are trying to say is that nobody really cares whether you ;) are convinced or not. You ;) know so little about the assassination and don't seem interested in learning anything beyond what your mindless conspiracy websites tell you ;) what to think.

You ;) are welcome to follow links and learn. Or not. CT opinions have zero value. I'm not familiar with any CTs who would put forth the effort. Are you ;)?
 
If this were true, we'd have people losing eyes or being greviously wounded by blood spatter all the time. If an AR-15 round impacted a person at 2,500 FPS, that would result in blood spatter exiting the body at around 9,000 FPS. I think that a drop of blood traveling at mach 8 might do more damage than the actual bullets. :rolleyes:

ETA - I was a few pages behind. I see that others have already made the same point.
No one is claiming that the backspatter in the Z-film is traveling four times faster than the incoming bullet. The claim is that it is initially traveling faster than the incoming bullet. To support my claim I have posted a video by a high speed camera showing a bullet hitting a blood soaked sponge and the backspatter initially traveling faster than the incoming bullet.

The point is that the blood spatter visible in Z313 is instant when the bullet hits the target = shot from in front, not a delayed effect from a shot from behind.

A qritique of this has been put forward by, Hank, but I’m still waiting for the detailed explanation of exactly what is refuted by what. An abstract claiming that blood soaked sponges gives ”different” effects than from blood filled human skulls doesn’t sound unreasonable at face value (no pun), but it is how this ”differences” translates into different speeds of the backspatter that is relevant and in need of an answer.

Until this info materialize I stick to the sponge tests which are performed and sanctioned by the international blood spatter analysis expertise as realistic substitutes for the real thing.
 
Ha ha! He thinks he is an opponent! How sweet.
Thank you, how sweet of you. Yes, I oppose anyone who is trying to protect the real assassins of JFK by spreading disinformation and propaganda on the web or elsewhere.

Shouldn’t I?
 
No one is claiming that the backspatter in the Z-film is traveling four times faster than the incoming bullet. The claim is that it is initially traveling faster than the incoming bullet.

Since the incoming bullet is supersonic, you are claiming that the backsplatter is also supersonic. That is IMPOSSIBLE.

To support my claim I have posted a video by a high speed camera showing a bullet hitting a blood soaked sponge and the backspatter initially traveling faster than the incoming bullet.

No, it doesn't show any such thing

ETA: it is also a .22 cal bullet, which is likely to be subsonic or only slightly supersonic (typical muzzle velocity 1000 to 1150 fps). The hunting rifle bullet you claim hit JFK from the front would have a velocity two to three times that of a .22 cal bullet

*****

Please explain the methodology behind the analysis of the sounds on the dictabelt (those that were claimed to be gunfire) and why the microphone has to be in certain places at certain times for the analysis to mean anything.
 
Last edited:
Thank you, how sweet of you. Yes, I oppose anyone who is trying to protect the real assassins of JFK by spreading disinformation and propaganda on the web or elsewhere.

Shouldn’t I?

Here, let me help with that, the killer's last known address was:

1026 N Beckley Ave, Dallas, TX 75203

Glad I could help.;)
 
Decerebate posture and Opisthotonos both have the same characteristics as JFKs movement (body arching backwards), both occur due to violent brain trauma, and they would explain why the rearward motion doesn't even begin until 1/9th of a second after the headshot.
Who says it begin 1/9th of second after the bullet hit the head?

Multiple experts in brain trauma and wound ballistics have looked at JFKs motion after the headshot and found that it was likely due to Decerebate posture, Opisthotonos or some other severe neurological reaction.
Multiple? Have any of them explained the minimum delay time in decerbrate reflexes? Any number here?

Conversely, no ballistic expert believes the rearward motion was caused by a half ounce bullet, because outside of Hollywood action movies, half ounce bullets fired from a hundred yards away do not possess the kinetic energy to throw around a 200 pound human being.
No one is claiming that a 200 pound body is violently snapping back and to the left. The claim is that JFK’s head is snapping back and to the left when hit by an incoming bullet from in front to the right. A reasonable hypothetical example:

- A .30-30 rifle has a muzzle velocity of 2200 ft/second and fires a 170 grain bullet weighing 0.024 pounds. Almost the same as a Carcano.

- The distance between the picket fence and the limo was 30 yards which gives a velocity of 2100 ft/sec when hitting the target = momentum on impact of 50ft-lb/sec.

- If using a soft point hunting bullet which typically mushrooms on impact, a reasonable transfer of momentum would be, lets say, 80% = 40 ft-lb/sec

- Average male head size for JFK’s body hight is 12 pounds, max 15 pounds.

- The velocity imparted on his head if weighing 12 pound would be 3.3 ft/sec and if weighing 15 pounds, it would have been 2.6 ft/sec.

- His head is moving in between Z313 - Z321 a total of 8-1/2 inches in 4/9th of second with a velocity of 1.6 ft/sec.

Well within the range of the involved parameters.

No Hollywood needed.

The initial snap forward,
- Could be a second bullet from behind.

- Could be the limo decelarating.

the path of the debris field,
The visible debris is traveling straight up/slightly forward which is caused by the Kronlein-Shuss effect.

the intact rear of the head in every available image,
There are to my knowledge only one photo that shows the back of the head after the assassination and that looks like it have been taken after the restoration of his body for the funeral.

The Zapruder film do not show the back of the head in any detail. It is covered in black shadow during the whole sequence and there is suspicions that the black patch is not a natural shadow but instead painted on after the film left Dallas.

In the case of the x-ray-images they have to be fabricated. There is no other reasonable explanation.

the neurological explanation for JFKs rearward movement,
I’m still waiting for a more detailed explanation, delay time included.

the authenticated x-rays,
The content is not authenticated. The film used is not authenticated. No one in the HSCA medical panel had the expertise to look for signs of forgery.

the authenticated autopsy photos,
Same here + that the camera used by the autopsy photographers did not match the photos at NARA.

the autopsy report
Written by Humes after burning his original papers after Oswald was killed. Does not confirm the x-rays in describing an entrance wound slightly above the EOP with a debris field in the lower part of the right brain vs. the x-rays showing a debris field in the uppermost part of the same right brain.

Doesn’t mention a big metal fragment in the cowlick area ca 10 cm above the original entrance wound. It shines like a lighthouse in the x-rays but the x-ray doctors missed it? Much bigger and brighter than anything else they found?

And most important, when questioned by the ARRB and asked to clearify their original drawings of the headwounds they admitted that the big wound on the right top of the head extended all the way down to the EOP.

Dr. Boswell described in detail that they did not identitify the entrance wound at the EOP until additional bone fragments were brought in to the autopsy and that they discovered the little ”bullet hole” when putting the pieces together.

The Harper fragment found in the grass south of Elm Street the day after the assassination. 7x5 cm cranial occipital bone = lower back of the head. According to the three forensic pathologists at Methodist Hospital in Dallas who photographed it, wrote their report and gave it all to to the FBI never to be seen again. Only the photographs remains and their analysis has been confirmed by other experts in the field.

There are no ”pieces” in the back of the head in the x-rays. No big wound extending all the way down to the EOP.

It is completely undamaged. In the x-rays. How come?

and the findings of multiple panels of forensic pathologists all lead to one inescapable conclusion. The grassy knoll shot is a work of fiction.
They were drawing their conclusions in the belief that the images at their disposal was authenticated. They were not authenticated.

They were lied to.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom