• 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.
manifesto said:
Cite the relevant info. Explain. Argue for its veracity. I neither can or should do it for you.

I believe I have informed you and your friends of this a couple of hundred times so far. What is it that you do not grasp? Explain and I lead you through it, step by step.
Click to expand...

I'll be blunt then:

The entire paper not only proves the the shot came from behind, but proves you don't understand science on any level.

You asked for science, there it is. You're wrong. You've failed.;)
 
Axxman300 said:
I'll be blunt then:

The entire paper not only proves the the shot came from behind, but proves you don't understand science on any level.

You asked for science, there it is. You're wrong. You've failed.;)
Click to expand...
Does it? So far you have just been babbleing about how great and scientificallistecly it is.

Show me. Cite the relevant parts. Explain. Argue for its veracity.

I neither can or should do it for you.
 
manifesto said:
Does it? So far you have just been babbleing about how great and scientificallistecly it is.

Show me. Cite the relevant parts. Explain. Argue for its veracity.

I neither can or should do it for you.
Click to expand...

Translation: I don't understand what it says, and it makes me look like a fool by supplying the physics proving the head-shot came from behind.;)
 
Steve said:
There is an even more fundamental question for manifesto - does he believe there is convincing evidence that JFK was shot? And if so, why does he believe this?
Click to expand...

he saw JFK pal-ing around Vegas with Elvis.
 
Axxman300 said:
Translation: I don't understand what it says, and it makes me look like a fool by supplying the physics proving the head-shot came from behind.;)
Click to expand...

This is how his particular dodge works.

He doesn't understand the science, or the mathematics (lets be frank, my 11 year old nephew has a better understanding of science and mathematics than manifesto does) so he tries to goad us into giving him the answers.

In any case, it wouldn't do any good if we did... he still wouldn't understand them, and since they don't come from a nutcase CT site, he won't believe them anyway.

Always keep in mind that nutcase CT sites tell him what to believe; they are his only source of "information"
 
Last edited:
By the way, manifesto would you ;) like to have a go at explaining 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:
manifesto said:
Does it? So far you have just been babbleing about how great and scientificallistecly it is.

Show me. Cite the relevant parts. Explain. Argue for its veracity.

I neither can or should do it for you.
Click to expand...

Do you know what paper is being discussed?
If so, I had been cited.
How does one cite the relevant parts?
Do you mean quotes?
Do you want page numbers?
Because it seems the whole paper is relevant, and it is the whole paper you need to read.
That’s how it is sometimes.
 
smartcooky said:
By the way, manifesto would you ;) like to have a go at explaining 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.
Click to expand...

Already tried that. He copied and pasted some of the snippets but didn’t show he understands it.
 
Tomtomkent said:
Do you know what paper is being discussed?
If so, I had been cited.
How does one cite the relevant parts?
Do you mean quotes?
Do you want page numbers?
Because it seems the whole paper is relevant, and it is the whole paper you need to read.
That’s how it is sometimes.
Click to expand...

Its like dealing with a child!
 
Last edited:
I have spent the last couple of hours reading the heliyon.com article posted by Axxman. Very interesting reading it is too.

I glossed over some of the maths as it is a bit beyond me, but I accept that the calculations are correct (someone would surely have picked up on any mistakes by now)

There are some salient points that need to be made. I must stress that these are EXCERPTS from those sections. There is a LOT more in there that needs to be read IN CONTEXT!

Now I know manifesto won't read it... he appears to be allergic to truth, and to anything that might challenge his world-view (no room for conspiracies in scientific truth and vice versa). However, I urge others, especially lurkers and those on the fence, to read it in full. It doesn't matter if you don't understand the maths, just take it as read. It may save you from a world of hurt by preventing you from falling down the rabbit hole.

Section: Direct impulse effect of projectile-target collision.
It is also crucial to note that this anomalous forward impulse at Z313 is only observed on Kennedy's head—it is not observed on any of the other limo occupants, nor is it even observed on Kennedy's own torso, wherein lies his body's center-of-mass (CM). This implies that an isolated real force acted directly (and solely) upon the President's head just prior to Z313; the only plausible source for this instantaneous, isolated forcing mechanism is manifestly and unequivocally the projectile impact.

This puts paid to manifesto's bare assertion that JFK's forward movement was due to the car decelerating. Everyone else was in the same car, so if it decelerated, they would all have exhibited forward movement

Section: Skull impacts
Note it may also be deduced that the bullet was well airborne at Z312 and the moment of impact probably occurred just after the shutter closed. In fact, the bullet may very well have been just outside or within the camera's field-of-view (FOV) at Z312. This is corroborated by the gruesome image depicted in Z313, where the subsequent explosion of the head cavity is well underway in the wake of the bullet's violent passage. The explosion observed in the Zapruder Film and its dynamical effects are explored in more detail below in Section 2.2.

Confirms what I was saying earlier about the bullet in relation to the shutter of Zapruders camera


Section: Indirect effects of projectile-target interaction.
Zapruder Frames Z313–Z316, [which] capture the “back and to the left” motion exhibited by the President immediately after the bullet impact. Clearly there is a backward movement, but the movement is delayed and slower than the forward impulse discussed above. The impact occurred just following the shutter closure of Z312; this means that the bullet (what was left of it) was long gone by the time of the shutter opening at Z313.
Puts paid to manifesto's bare assertion that the bullet was still acting on JFK's head as it went "back and to the left". Clearly, this was simply impossible.

Section: Energy transfer mechanisms
In Z313–Z316 an expulsion of mass is observed resulting from an explosion caused in the wake of a high-speed projectile passage. Although the explosion emanates over a range of angles within a roughly conical cloud, the explosion of mass nevertheless is observed to escape from the single large wound on the right front of the President's head. Note that this is not a universal occurrence—depending on the firearm, bullet, target, entry and exit locations, etc., different “explosions” can result. But in this case a directional expulsion of mass is observed in the Zapruder Film. It is this escape of the explosion from one end of the cavity, but not the other, that creates a directional component to the mass expulsion, and thus a “jet.”
Expulsion of matter from the front right of JFK's head was at least partially responsible for back and to the left

Section: A near-simultaneous shot from the front?
...many have argued over the intervening decades that the rearward lurch (or “back and to the left” motion) of President Kennedy shortly after the fatal impact at Z313 “proved” an impact from the front, possibly even as a second near-simultaneous shot. Any conclusive proof of a shot from the front would ergo be proof-positive of the existence of a conspiracy. Would a rifle shot from the front explain the rearward lurch?

The short answer to this question is “no” because there was no cratered exit wound on the left and/or rear side of the President's skull, nor were there any bullet fragments recovered from such a shot; this rules out a high-speed, full-metal jacketed round, as such rounds would pass through the target. But additionally, it must be recalled that the “forward snap” observed at Z313 is unequivocally the result of a shot from the rear, and this occurs before the rearward lurch. Thus, even if one allows the possibility of a shot from the front, it must be conceded that any such hypothetical shot was, without question, first preceded by a shot from the rear. The implication of this proposition is that the shot from the front would then have entered an already-shattered skull as observed in Z313. It should now be clear to the reader that, from Eq. (2), it is precisely the collision and drag forces acting upon a projectile that impart an impulse force and acceleration on the target (indeed, this is how momentum is conserved), and these forces are directly proportional to projectile's presented area. Thus, a hypothetical full-metal jacketed round entering a shattered skull from the front would not impart a detectable impulse - it would simply pass through with little change in momentum, much like the shot that wounded the President in the lower neck.

This makes the shot from the front a completely dead duck, and manifesto's whole line of argument dies with it..
 
Last edited:
smartcooky said:
I have spent the last couple of hours reading the heliyon.com article posted by Axxman. Very interesting reading it is too.

I glossed over some of the maths as it is a bit beyond me, but I accept that the calculations are correct (someone would surely have picked up on any mistakes by now)

There are some salient points that need to be made. I must stress that these are EXCERPTS from those sections. There is a LOT more in there that needs to be read IN CONTEXT!

Now I know manifesto won't read it... he appears to be allergic to truth, and to anything that might challenge his world-view (no room for conspiracies in scientific truth and vice versa). However, I urge others, especially lurkers and those on the fence, to read it in full. It doesn't matter if you don't understand the maths, just take it as read. It may save you from a world of hurt by preventing you from falling down the rabbit hole.

Section: Direct impulse effect of projectile-target collision.
It is also crucial to note that this anomalous forward impulse at Z313 is only observed on Kennedy's head—it is not observed on any of the other limo occupants, nor is it even observed on Kennedy's own torso, wherein lies his body's center-of-mass (CM). This implies that an isolated real force acted directly (and solely) upon the President's head just prior to Z313; the only plausible source for this instantaneous, isolated forcing mechanism is manifestly and unequivocally the projectile impact.

This puts paid to manifesto's bare assertion that JFK's forward movement was due to the car decelerating. Everyone else was in the same car, so if it decelerated, they would all have exhibited forward movement

Section: Skull impacts
Note it may also be deduced that the bullet was well airborne at Z312 and the moment of impact probably occurred just after the shutter closed. In fact, the bullet may very well have been just outside or within the camera's field-of-view (FOV) at Z312. This is corroborated by the gruesome image depicted in Z313, where the subsequent explosion of the head cavity is well underway in the wake of the bullet's violent passage. The explosion observed in the Zapruder Film and its dynamical effects are explored in more detail below in Section 2.2.

Confirms what I was saying earlier about the bullet in relation to the shutter of Zapruders camera


Section: Indirect effects of projectile-target interaction.
Zapruder Frames Z313–Z316, [which] capture the “back and to the left” motion exhibited by the President immediately after the bullet impact. Clearly there is a backward movement, but the movement is delayed and slower than the forward impulse discussed above. The impact occurred just following the shutter closure of Z312; this means that the bullet (what was left of it) was long gone by the time of the shutter opening at Z313.
Puts paid to manifesto's bare assertion that the bullet was still acting on JFK's head as it went "back and to the left". Clearly, this was simply impossible.

Section: Energy transfer mechanisms
In Z313–Z316 an expulsion of mass is observed resulting from an explosion caused in the wake of a high-speed projectile passage. Although the explosion emanates over a range of angles within a roughly conical cloud, the explosion of mass nevertheless is observed to escape from the single large wound on the right front of the President's head. Note that this is not a universal occurrence—depending on the firearm, bullet, target, entry and exit locations, etc., different “explosions” can result. But in this case a directional expulsion of mass is observed in the Zapruder Film. It is this escape of the explosion from one end of the cavity, but not the other, that creates a directional component to the mass expulsion, and thus a “jet.”
Expulsion of matter from the front right of JFK's head was at least partially responsible for back and to the left

Section: A near-simultaneous shot from the front?
...many have argued over the intervening decades that the rearward lurch (or “back and to the left” motion) of President Kennedy shortly after the fatal impact at Z313 “proved” an impact from the front, possibly even as a second near-simultaneous shot. Any conclusive proof of a shot from the front would ergo be proof-positive of the existence of a conspiracy. Would a rifle shot from the front explain the rearward lurch?

The short answer to this question is “no” because there was no cratered exit wound on the left and/or rear side of the President's skull, nor were there any bullet fragments recovered from such a shot; this rules out a high-speed, full-metal jacketed round, as such rounds would pass through the target. But additionally, it must be recalled that the “forward snap” observed at Z313 is unequivocally the result of a shot from the rear, and this occurs before the rearward lurch. Thus, even if one allows the possibility of a shot from the front, it must be conceded that any such hypothetical shot was, without question, first preceded by a shot from the rear. The implication of this proposition is that the shot from the front would then have entered an already-shattered skull as observed in Z313. It should now be clear to the reader that, from Eq. (2), it is precisely the collision and drag forces acting upon a projectile that impart an impulse force and acceleration on the target (indeed, this is how momentum is conserved), and these forces are directly proportional to projectile's presented area. Thus, a hypothetical full-metal jacketed round entering a shattered skull from the front would not impart a detectable impulse - it would simply pass through with little change in momentum, much like the shot that wounded the President in the lower neck.

This makes the shot from the front a completely dead duck, and manifesto's whole line of argument dies with it..
Click to expand...
You know you are facilitating his laziness.:boggled:
 
bknight said:
You know you are facilitating his laziness.:boggled:
Click to expand...

All I have done is directly address where he is just plain wrong. The excerpts are no more than conclusions reached from the real work in the article, and won't tell him anything. He will have to READ the rest of the article; he won't, we know that..... we know that because

a. He is too lazy, and

b. He is utterly incapable of understanding it.
 
Last edited:
smartcooky said:
All I have done is directly address where he is just plain wrong. The excerpts are no more than conclusions reached from the real work in the article, and won't tell him anything. He will have to READ the rest of the article; he won't, we know that..... we know that because

a. He is too lazy, and

b. He is utterly incapable of understanding it.
Click to expand...

I hope you realize that I meant no offence.:)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom