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

[manifesto]

Well, there's your problem in a nutshell. You were provided the source of the data. It won't just 'materialize' like magic. You have to go look it up.

What you're effective saying is you won't look it up, you want it spoon-fed to you, which translates to most of us that you're not interested in testing your claims against science.

Hank

Hank’s world:

Providing sources and citations in support of his claims = spoon-feeding.

Yes, it is a strange place.

 

[Tomtomkent]

Hank’s world:

Providing sources and citations in support of his claims = spoon-feeding.

Yes, it is a strange place.

Erm... I highlighted the bit you seem to have missed:

Well, there's your problem in a nutshell. You were provided the source of the data. It won't just 'materialize' like magic. You have to go look it up.

What you're effective saying is you won't look it up, you want it spoon-fed to you, which translates to most of us that you're not interested in testing your claims against science.

Hank

The complaint is not you would be spoon-fed if supplied citations.

It is that you were supplied those and still claimed the information had not materialised.

Given that citations were made, and you know where the material is, what further step should reasonably be expected to be taken for it "to materialise", which would not be spoon-feeding you the data?

 

[manifesto]

Erm... I highlighted the bit you seem to have missed:



The complaint is not you would be spoon-fed if supplied citations.

It is that you were supplied those and still claimed the information had not materialised.

Given that citations were made, and you know where the material is, what further step should reasonably be expected to be taken for it "to materialise", which would not be spoon-feeding you the data?

Hank is citing from an abstract of a paper behind a paywall. No detailed explanation of the data and certainly nothing explicitly refuting anything based on my citing of the sponge tests.

”It is different”, hardly qualifies as a refuting argument.

But, go ahead, defend each other like an angry flock of hyenas. In absurdum. A good sign of collective desperation.

Go ahead.

 

[RoboTimbo]

Hank’s world:

Providing sources and citations in support of his claims = spoon-feeding.

Yes, it is a strange place.

You seem to have given up even attempting to support your claims since you've had your head handed to you so much. Are you tired of being wrong in more than one thread?

 

[RoboTimbo]

Hank is citing from an abstract, detailed explanation of the data and certainly nothing explicitly refuting anything based on my citing of the sponge tests.

”It is different”, hardly qualifies as a refuting argument.

But, go ahead, defend each other like an angry flock of hyenas. In absurdum. A good sign of collective desperation.

For example, you have run like a rabbit from answering why Oswald went on to murder Officer Tippitt after assassinating JFK and then went on to try to murder more officers (with the same gun) in the theater when he was cornered.

Why do you run from answering like that?

 

[carlitos]

Blurry conspiraspank youtube - no data needed.

Abstract from academic paper - where's the data behind the paywall?

Pretty obvious.

 

[HSienzant]

Hank is citing from an abstract of a paper behind a paywall. No detailed explanation of the data and certainly nothing explicitly refuting anything based on my citing of the sponge tests.

I recall you posting a YouTube video. Nothing about a source to any scientific published peer-reviewed paper. Not even an abstract. You appear to have a serious double-standard: anything you post is beyond reproach, anything we post is undoubtedly unproven for whatever reason happens to be handy at the moment. Paywall? I remind you you cited a supposed statement by Sweet from a book by Fiester - to verify she said that, one has to purchase the book, doesn't one? Granted, the YouTube video of a sponge getting shot by a bullet you cited was free, but not a scientific study.

Hank

 

[HSienzant]

”It is different”, hardly qualifies as a refuting argument.

1. Actually it does. JFK was shot in the skull, not the sponge. Cite tests with skulls. We'll wait.
2. Shifting the burden of proof once more. Nobody must refute your unproven claims, you must prove them.
3. Additional evidence of a double-standard. Whatever you claim must be accepted or refuted beyond doubt, whatever science study we cite won't be acceptable because you had a bad hair day, or whatever reason springs to mind at the time.

Hank

 

[manifesto]

Math.

From frame 312 to 314, JFKs head is moving forward. The rearward motion starts at Z315, 2 frames after the headshot.

Is it your own eye-balling or someone else’s?

Yup.

From the Rockefeller Commission:

Dr. Alfred G. Olivier, DVM, Chief, Biophysics Division, Edgewood Arsenal

Dr. Werner Spitz, M.D., forensic pathologist, Chief Medical Examiner, Wayne County, Michigan - "The subsequent backward movement of the President's head can be explained by sudden decerebration. This position is well known as "decerebrate posture" and is characterized by opisthotonos, a tetanic spasm -- or seizure-like condition."

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

Nothing here on delay time of decerebrate reflexes. Why are you quoting text in support for your claims that doesn’t answer my question?

Magical thinking?

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.


You are still in Hollywood?

 

[Wolrab]

The is a difference between Hollywood and Lalaland.

 

[manifesto]

The is a difference between Hollywood and Lalaland.

So, you do not agree with my hypothetical example with an ordinary Winchester .30-30 rifle and an ordinary hunting bullet above?

Why is that?

 

[carlitos]

- 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.

Why are you discussing a Carcano?

 

[HSienzant]

So, you do not agree ...?

You owe me a detailed critique of this post: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=12305687&postcount=3658

You appear to have missed responding to that one, or more likely, simply ignored it because you had no rebuttal.

You also never responded to the requests for sources, other than to quibble with how I asked for sources.

You also ignored the post where it was pointed out to you that your own supposed expert, Sherry Fiester, didn't agree with you on the source of the shots or the accuracy of the ear witnesses.

Hank

 

[bknight]

As an aside, and for interest's sake. I found this website

http://www.rathcoombe.net/sci-tech/ballistics/wounding.html

Very interesting information on terminal ballistics. I struggled to understand a fair bit of it, but its clear that it is not a simple science, and certainly, it will be beyond the understanding of most CTs who are only interested in simple "sound-byte" answers.

Nice find. I read about 2-3 pages Shooting Holes in Wounding Theories. Looks like direct refutation of the back and to the left from a bullet from the FRONT.
But almost everyone here knew that and I suspect neither manifesto or MJ will read.

 

[HSienzant]

Is it your own eye-balling or someone else’s?

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.

You're claiming only the head goes backward, not the entire upper body?

Is that your own eyeballing or someone else's?

If only the head, wouldn't JFK wind up facing upward, as the force is applied only near the top of the head in your argument? Wouldn't the head rotate backward by pivoting at the neck, forcing his head to be facing upwards? Is that what we all see in the Zframes, or do we see the entire upper torso move backward in conjunction?

https://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z316.jpg

Hank

 

[Axxman300]

Hank is citing from an abstract of a paper behind a paywall. No detailed explanation of the data and certainly nothing explicitly refuting anything based on my citing of the sponge tests.

And what's your pathetic excuse for not reading this?

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

No pay wall, and it explains the physics and physiology behind why JFK's head shot backwards from the rear head wound.

It says you're wrong.

 

[Axxman300]

So, you do not agree with my hypothetical example with an ordinary Winchester .30-30 rifle and an ordinary hunting bullet above?

Why is that?

Because the Carcano round is bigger, faster, better stabilized, and struck with more force.

160 grain, it moved at 2,700fps, and the rifle barrel has a twist ratio of 1:8.

Plus you ignore the face that the fact that the bullet would have exited through the left side of the head, and not exploded on contact like you seem to think it would.

 

[CORed]

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



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.

Truly amazing. Who, other than a CT, would suggest that a video of a blood-soked sponge hit by a subsonic .22 round proves anything at all about a living human skull being hit by a supersonic 6.52mm round? Apples and oranges doesn't really cover it. It's more like apples and road apples (road apples being a slang expression for horse manure).

 

[CORed]

<snip>
A more personal question to you my friend. Have you ever been correct in any discussion you have taken part in? Ever? How does it feel inside to be this wrong of just about everything were you have an opinon? Everytime. Over and over.

I would have felt devasted by shame in your shoes. You don’t? How come?

Are you talking to yourself? Or are you just Black Knighting again?

 

[CORed]

1. Actually it does. JFK was shot in the skull, not the sponge. Cite tests with skulls. We'll wait.
2. Shifting the burden of proof once more. Nobody must refute your unproven claims, you must prove them.
3. Additional evidence of a double-standard. Whatever you claim must be accepted or refuted beyond doubt, whatever science study we cite won't be acceptable because you had a bad hair day, or whatever reason springs to mind at the time.

Hank

The double standard again. When presented with data from goats on neurological response to being shot, manifesto insisted that only data from humans would do. But for his blood spatter silliness, a sponge is a perfectly adequate substitute for a human skull.