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

[RoboTimbo]

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.

Was it ever in question that Kennedy was shot from behind?

Show your working. Explain. Be concise. You have the burden of proof.

Nobody can do it for you .

 

[manifesto]

Agree



Agree



First, I disagree with the 80%; its more like 40%,

Why is that?

but for argument's sake, until I do some calculations, I'll let you have your 80%

However, the next bit is where you completely fail to understand the physics of terminal ballistics.

The bullet does not impart all that energy to the whole head, it imparts the vast majority of that energy only to the small area it impacts, being approximately the cross sectional area (CSA) of the bullet diameter, that is why it PENETRATES the head; that is why the 6.5x52 Carcano bullet only pushed JFK's head forward fractionally when it hit his head from behind.

A high velocity bullet hitting someone in the head does not have the same effect as a baseball bat hitting someone in the head. The baseball bat, even though its velocity will be much lower, it has VASTLY more area in contact with the head. A 3030 bullet has a CSA of 38mm², its tiny.

Subsonic ammunition puts a large dent in an empty paint can and it is knocked back a few feet. This happens because the subsonic ammunition loses most of its energy in the impact. However, supersonic ammunition, such as a round fired from my Savage M12 (.243, about 3000 fps) punches straight through and the can moves less than a foot... almost all of the energy is retained, and most of the energy that is lost (not very much) is in penetration. Fill the tin with water, and now we have a different story. The bullet causes cavitation in the water (and loses a tremendous amount of its energy in doing so) but the extra mass of the water makes the tin much heavier, so it still doesn't shoot backwards several feet, in fact it hardly moves.

About the only gun that could have caused JFK's head to move backwards to any significant degree would be something with a huge calibre and a low to medium velocity, such as a 12 gauge shotgun firing a slug. (appriox 70 cal, and around 390 to 450 grains, at 1800 fps). The sound of that going off would have been obvious to anyone anywhere near it (BOOM!) and there is no effective way to suppress it.

If 80% of its momentum is transferred to the head, you must account for all if it. Some of it can not just disapear. There are two candidates, heat and momentum.

Are you telling me that the transferred kinetik energy is transformed to heat?

 

[manifesto]

Was it ever in question that Kennedy was shot from behind?

Show your working. Explain. Be concise. You have the burden of proof.

Nobody can do it for you .

No, I do not think he was not shot from behind. I know he was shot from behind and from in front. I also know that nothing can convince anyone of you that this is what happened. Nothing.

The only thing I can do is to tell you the truth.

 

[manifesto]

Why are you discussing a Carcano?

To show that there is no need for a dramatically different type of weapon, that the HSCA acoustic sonar analysis was made from test shots with a Carcano from the picket fence on the knoll showing that a Carcano-like rifle fired from the knoll caused the movements of JFK’s head as seen in the Z-film.

 

[manifesto]

(no room for conspiracies in scientific truth and vice versa).

Interesting. Why is that?

 

[manifesto]

I hope you realize that I meant no offence.

Ah, you are sooo cute when lovingly padding each other in public. I want to see more of this sweetnes.

Love is important.

 

[manifesto]

A good point. Manifesto reminds me of Robert Harris who liked to use Alvarez as an authoritative source while explaining that Alvarez was completely wrong and that Robert could interpret the data much better than the source he was quoting could.

Alvarez as a go to guy carrying water for the US Security State should have its own thread. As a cautionary tale.

I’ll see if I got the time do start one in the near future. Promise.

 

[Tomtomkent]

To show that there is no need for a dramatically different type of weapon, that the HSCA acoustic sonar analysis was made from test shots with a Carcano from the picket fence on the knoll showing that a Carcano-like rifle fired from the knoll caused the movements of JFK’s head as seen in the Z-film.

Which, as has been shown already in this discussion, not what the tests showed.

The sonar analysis showed that rifle shots *were viable* as an explanation, and would fit the patterns *if* (and make no mistake this is a big if, an if so big it distorts gravity, an if so big it has to be written in crayon and underlined in red) the assumptions of where the timings matched and where the microphone physically was, at all five waypoints, were correct.

So far the microphone can be shown to be at NONE of the waypoints.

At this point there is no reason to discuss the study, when he simply demands to misrepresent the nature of the findings.

 

[RoboTimbo]

No, I do not think he was not shot from behind. I know he was shot from behind and from in front. I also know that nothing can convince anyone of you that this is what happened. Nothing.

You might want to try using evidence for your shot from the front. The only evidence presented so far has been for Oswald's shots from his Carcano from his sniper's nest in the TSBD.

The only thing I can do is to tell you the truth.

Awesome! When will you start?

 

[RoboTimbo]

Interesting. Why is that?

When are you going to answer the question about why Oswald went on to murder Officer Tippitt after he assassinated JFK and then tried to murder more officers in the theater with the same revolver he used to murder Officer Tippitt? Why is it that CTs don't want to answer that?

 

[jeffas69]

No, I do not think he was not shot from behind. I know he was shot from behind and from in front. I also know that nothing can convince anyone of you that this is what happened. Nothing.

The only thing I can do is to tell you the truth.

Evidence. Actual evidence of this shot would convince us. You have not shown any. Where is the exit wound for this shot? Others here have asked you that already.

 

[Disbelief]

No, I do not think he was not shot from behind. I know he was shot from behind and from in front. I also know that nothing can convince anyone of you that this is what happened. Nothing.

The only thing I can do is to tell you the truth.

How can you know he was shot from in front when you have no evidence of it? Why do you try to hold Hank and others here to a level that you are not willing to go to yourself?

 

[manifesto]

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

Wrong. The forward head movement happened before Z313. Now, tell me, why should I continue reading if they make this big blunder already in the first sentence you are quoting?

Is it getting better?

 

[Dave Rogers]

Now I know manifesto won't read it...

Wrong. The forward head movement happened before Z313. Now, tell me, why should I continue reading if they make this big blunder already in the first sentence you are quoting?

Good call.

Dave

 

[Tomtomkent]

No, I do not think he was not shot from behind. I know he was shot from behind and from in front. I also know that nothing can convince anyone of you that this is what happened. Nothing.

The only thing I can do is to tell you the truth.

I can tell you what would convince me, and others:
1) evidence of another shooter.
2) evidence of the wounds caused by this other shooter, in the autopsy records, ideally in photographs and X-rays, as well as the documentary record.
3) evidence of bullets fired from this other shooter.
4) evidence in the photographic and filmed record of events.

The problem you face is:
There is no sign of any such wound in the autopsy record, the photographs, x-rays, or any other records. None. Nada. Zilch. Furthermore there is no reason to suspect evidence is missing.

 

[jeffas69]

Wrong. The forward head movement happened before Z313. Now, tell me, why should I continue reading if they make this big blunder already in the first sentence you are quoting?

Is it getting better?

Because they corrected this minor meaningless error in the same paragraph?

 

[manifesto]

How can you know he was shot from in front when you have no evidence of it? Why do you try to hold Hank and others here to a level that you are not willing to go to yourself?

- The scientific proof of a rifle shot from in front is in the HSCA acoustic evidence.

- IF the Zapruder film is not tampered with, it is also scientific proof of a shot from in front.

- IF the Zapruder film is tampered with, that too is scientific proof of a shot from in front. If not, why tamper?

- The overwhelming testimony from almost all of those who observed JFK’s headwounds close up says it was a big gaping hole in the right back of the head —-> shot from in front. Alomost 50 doctors, nurses, forensic pathologists from three hospitals and agents from two federal police agencies.

- The Parkland doctors press conference stating it was a small round punctuated entrance wound in JFK’s throat —-> shot from in front.

- Most of the asked witnesses, 52 individuals, saying that shot/s came from the direction of the knoll —-> shot from in front.

- The concerted effort, by LIFE and investigating authorities, to conceal the violent thrust back and to the left of JFK’s head when hit by the fatal head shot —-> shot from in front.

- The false Secret Service agent behind the picket fence showing Secret Sevice credentials to two of the police officers running up there directly after the shooting had stopped —-> shot from in front.

- Multiple testimonies of seeing and smelling gunsmoke on and below the knoll after the shooting ——> shot from in front.

- Multiple witnesses reporting coaching and threats from police officers when not conforming to the official story of three shots from the TSBD ——> shot from in front.

- Stealing JFK’s dead body from the Parkland Hospital threatening the coroner with guns so that no autopsy could be done before it left the hospital as the law states ——> shot from in front.

- Scientific proof of faked x-rays ——> shot from in front.

Shall I continue?


What more do you need to swing around from denial back to reality? An exhumation of JFK?

Good idea. It is about time, isn’t it?

 

[jeffas69]

- The scientific proof of a rifle shot from in front is in the HSCA acoustic evidence.

- The Parkland doctors press conference stating it was a small round punctuated entrance wound in JFK’s throat —-> shot from in front.

Do you see any huge contradictions here?

 

[Steve]

- The scientific proof of a rifle shot from in front is in the HSCA acoustic evidence.

- IF the Zapruder film is not tampered with, it is also scientific proof of a shot from in front.

- IF the Zapruder film is tampered with, that too is scientific proof of a shot from in front. If not, why tamper?

- The overwhelming testimony from almost all of those who observed JFK’s headwounds close up says it was a big gaping hole in the right back of the head —-> shot from in front. Alomost 50 doctors, nurses, forensic pathologists from three hospitals and agents from two federal police agencies.

- The Parkland doctors press conference stating it was a small round punctuated entrance wound in JFK’s throat —-> shot from in front.

- Most of the asked witnesses, 52 individuals, saying that shot/s came from the direction of the knoll —-> shot from in front.

- The concerted effort, by LIFE and investigating authorities, to conceal the violent thrust back and to the left of JFK’s head when hit by the fatal head shot —-> shot from in front.

- The false Secret Service agent behind the picket fence showing Secret Sevice credentials to two of the police officers running up there directly after the shooting had stopped —-> shot from in front.

- Multiple testimonies of seeing and smelling gunsmoke on and below the knoll after the shooting ——> shot from in front.

- Multiple witnesses reporting coaching and threats from police officers when not conforming to the official story of three shots from the TSBD ——> shot from in front.

- Stealing JFK’s dead body from the Parkland Hospital threatening the coroner with guns so that no autopsy could be done before it left the hospital as the law states ——> shot from in front.

- Scientific proof of faked x-rays ——> shot from in front.

Shall I continue?


What more do you need to swing around from denial back to reality? An exhumation of JFK?

Good idea. It is about time, isn’t it?

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

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

I neither can or should do it for you.

Please proceed.

 

[Disbelief]

- The scientific proof of a rifle shot from in front is in the HSCA acoustic evidence.

- IF the Zapruder film is not tampered with, it is also scientific proof of a shot from in front.

- IF the Zapruder film is tampered with, that too is scientific proof of a shot from in front. If not, why tamper?

- The overwhelming testimony from almost all of those who observed JFK’s headwounds close up says it was a big gaping hole in the right back of the head —-> shot from in front. Alomost 50 doctors, nurses, forensic pathologists from three hospitals and agents from two federal police agencies.

- The Parkland doctors press conference stating it was a small round punctuated entrance wound in JFK’s throat —-> shot from in front.

- Most of the asked witnesses, 52 individuals, saying that shot/s came from the direction of the knoll —-> shot from in front.

- The concerted effort, by LIFE and investigating authorities, to conceal the violent thrust back and to the left of JFK’s head when hit by the fatal head shot —-> shot from in front.

- The false Secret Service agent behind the picket fence showing Secret Sevice credentials to two of the police officers running up there directly after the shooting had stopped —-> shot from in front.

- Multiple testimonies of seeing and smelling gunsmoke on and below the knoll after the shooting ——> shot from in front.

- Multiple witnesses reporting coaching and threats from police officers when not conforming to the official story of three shots from the TSBD ——> shot from in front.

- Stealing JFK’s dead body from the Parkland Hospital threatening the coroner with guns so that no autopsy could be done before it left the hospital as the law states ——> shot from in front.

- Scientific proof of faked x-rays ——> shot from in front.

Shall I continue?


What more do you need to swing around from denial back to reality? An exhumation of JFK?

Good idea. It is about time, isn’t it?

Please continue, and maybe this time provide evidence. Like I said, you hold others to a standard that you are unwilling to provide yourself. You make a bunch of assertions and provide no sources for any of them. One that stands out is the proven fake x-rays. Could you please cite the source and provide this evidence?