|
Post by PhantomWolf on Jan 21, 2012 1:22:23 GMT -4
Jason thompson "with real human bone in them being shot " if you have ANY evidence that a carcano can fire a 6.5 bullet so as to shatter two bones and can remain in a similar "pristine" condition. BRING IT ON and i don't even care if the bullet TUMBLES all the way or not. or with or without shooting thru all the flesh... again you are embarrassing yourself! even specter and the warren commission couldn't pull off this trick! they couldn't even shoot a bullet into cotton wadding with less deformation and damage. please post the evidence, photos demanded! or withdraw this non-sense mcadams.posc.mu.edu/bullet3.jpg
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Jan 21, 2012 3:38:13 GMT -4
Or there's the episode of Unsolved History where they shoot a bullet into wood and have it coming out looking much like that one did.
|
|
|
Post by Jason Thompson on Jan 21, 2012 8:46:03 GMT -4
There really is no point, is there? Playdor, despite his claims to 'multiple degrees in science' demonstrates not a single iota of actual scientific understanding.
A good scientist understands how to construct a good experiment by isolating the relevant variables and setting up an analogous situation. Obviously we can't go and shoot someone in the head to see how their head reacts, so we have to use substitutes, and the principle is still just as nicely illustrated, whether that substitute is a melon or a ballistics dummy. And that still leaves the things like neuromuscular response to trauma unaccounted for.
Someone who is not a scientist cries foul if anything is different. Something playdor has done on multiple occasions now.
|
|
|
Post by ka9q on Jan 21, 2012 12:57:42 GMT -4
Someone who is not a scientist cries foul if anything is different. Something playdor has done on multiple occasions now. Only if the result of the experiment contradicts what they'd like to believe, as is the case here. Playdor's rejection of the melon-shooting experiments is a perfect example of the nasty streak of populist anti-intellectualism that seems all too common these days, especially in the US. His refrain is "we don't need no stinkin' science, I've got my intuition", even going so far as to suggest that when a majority of the population ("60% in 1963") believes (or is claimed to believe) something, that automatically makes it right -- even when it contradicts the results of a carefully designed and reproducible scientific experiment.
|
|
|
Post by Mr Gorsky on Jan 21, 2012 16:28:44 GMT -4
IF you were to ask me why 60% of Americans thought it was a conspiracy in 1963, is because people were not stupid enough to believe that someone flies toward the movement of a bullet when they get their brains blown out. or any other time! I used to think that was odd too ... until I realised that my entire experience of people having their brains blown out came from the movies and not from real life (for which I am enormously grateful). These being the same movies that have sound in space, moving starfields and spaceships firing their engines all the time because the audience would think it looked wrong (and boring) if they showed what it was really like. Kennedy's head is indeed moving "toward the movement of the bullet", thus fulfilling Newtons Third Law of Motion (To every action there is always an equal and opposite reaction). The force of his brains being "blown out" through the exit wound in a forward direction causes his head to move in the opposite direction (i.e. backwards - towards where the bullet came from). Exactly the same way that the firing of a rocket engine in a downward direction causes the rocket itself to move upwards ... or don't you believe in that either?
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Jan 21, 2012 19:18:01 GMT -4
These being the same movies that have sound in space, moving starfields and spaceships firing their engines all the time because the audience would think it looked wrong (and boring) if they showed what it was really like. Mythbusters tested the whole hollywood version of people being shoot and getting flung across the room in the direction of the bullet. The best movement they got as about annches, and required soild shot from a shotgun, nothing else they tried would transfer enough momentum to the target. In the retry, they even used a 50 cal with the same result.
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Jan 21, 2012 19:30:57 GMT -4
Was it possible for a grassy knoll shooter to have done the damage to JKF?
How about a shooter in the position Oswald was supposed to be in?
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Jan 21, 2012 19:50:26 GMT -4
How about making 7 wounds with one bullet? Is that possible?
|
|
|
Post by ka9q on Jan 22, 2012 9:56:29 GMT -4
These tests were simply outstanding. They completely obliterate every one of the conspiracists' alternate hypotheses:
Hollow-point hunting bullet from the sole "workable" grassy knoll location: would have released all its energy quickly on hitting thin skull bone and obliterated JFK's head. Ruled out.
Oswald's metal jacketed military-style bullet from same location: would have passed through JFK's head, killing him and continued on through Jackie, killing her too. Also ruled out.
*Any* gun fired from that grassy knoll location: also ruled out from the simple fact that no nearby witness saw or heard such a nearby shot.
Metal jacketed bullet from Oswald's 6th floor TSBD window: exact same results as actual assassination.
Hard to beat that! But something tells me the conspiracy fans just won't give up.
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Jan 22, 2012 16:51:10 GMT -4
Not as long as they refuse to argue based on evidence. They're arguing based on a belief that you can't trust the evidence, which is an emotional argument and harder to refute. Not because the chain of evidence isn't perfectly transparent in most cases, but because they don't want to believe that it is.
|
|
|
Post by twik on Jan 28, 2012 13:44:16 GMT -4
Why, don't you know where you got it?
|
|
|
Post by LunarOrbit on Jan 28, 2012 14:56:23 GMT -4
Maybe you should keep better notes when you do your "research".
|
|
|
Post by ka9q on Feb 3, 2012 2:16:39 GMT -4
I was really happy to see the Mythbusters examine (and re-examine) the "blown away" myth.
I regularly see conspiracists (including Apollo hoaxers) unload truckloads of vitriol on them. So they must be doing something right.
Some years ago the Mythbusters hit two cars head-on at 50 mph and Jamie said that was equivalent to one hitting a brick wall at 100 mph. I knew that wasn't true and apparently so did many other fans, so the Mythbusters revisited it. (That it involved crashing cars probably made the decision easy.) Sure enough, Jamie was shown to be wrong; two equal cars hitting head on at 50 mph suffered equal damage as one hitting a brick wall at 50 mph, not 100. Then Jamie got on camera and said "Yeah, I was wrong. But I'm okay with that, because that's how you learn." How many TV personalities (or hoaxers) say that? Not many.
|
|
|
Post by chew on Feb 3, 2012 11:58:07 GMT -4
I was really happy to see the Mythbusters examine (and re-examine) the "blown away" myth. I regularly see conspiracists (including Apollo hoaxers) unload truckloads of vitriol on them. So they must be doing something right. Some years ago the Mythbusters hit two cars head-on at 50 mph and Jamie said that was equivalent to one hitting a brick wall at 100 mph. I knew that wasn't true and apparently so did many other fans, so the Mythbusters revisited it. (That it involved crashing cars probably made the decision easy.) Sure enough, Jamie was shown to be wrong; two equal cars hitting head on at 50 mph suffered equal damage as one hitting a brick wall at 50 mph, not 100. Then Jamie got on camera and said "Yeah, I was wrong. But I'm okay with that, because that's how you learn." How many TV personalities (or hoaxers) say that? Not many. Before that they tested the myth that two interlaced phone books cannot be pulled apart. At the beginning of the show they had two teams on either side trying to pull the books apart. Nooo! Tie off one end to something sturdy and get both teams pulling on the same rope. It finally took two tanks to pull it apart so I doubt they will revisit it. But it would be nice to see them address the physics.
|
|
|
Post by Ranb on Feb 3, 2012 16:37:26 GMT -4
I have what I call an idiot check when reading about the events regarding JFK. Does the person say the bullet was pristine? If so then they have a very queer understanding of the word pristine, they have done very little research on the subject, they are stupid or they are lying. Here is what some people are calling a pristine bullet. Is it just me or are these people nuts? Ranb
|
|