|
Post by Jason Thompson on Jan 12, 2012 18:13:25 GMT -4
PhantomWolf why don't you take a look at the z film or digitals and decide for yourself? Why do you assume no-opne here has done so? It matters more that you provide the evidence that it was altered, and yes, a suggestion of how it was done is indeed appropriate. Get on with it then.
|
|
|
Post by Jason Thompson on Jan 12, 2012 4:07:38 GMT -4
Maybe the inquiry should be into exactly who altered it, why and what did they do with the original film. Actually the question should be why you have not provided the evidence of tampering as requested. Again I will repeat that request until you comply.
|
|
|
Post by Jason Thompson on Jan 12, 2012 4:06:43 GMT -4
Jason Thompson the doctors in the trauma room at Parkland hospital that worked on JFK including Dr Charles Crenshaw and Dr Robert McCelland and staff, witnesses in Dealey plaza, photographers and personnel at Bethesda have sworn that the head wound was entry front right, exit back right. I said provide a reference, not repeat your claim. I will repeat that request until you comply.
|
|
|
Post by Jason Thompson on Jan 10, 2012 16:00:35 GMT -4
And it would certainly survive long enough to make balloon animals out of your lower intestines...
|
|
|
Post by Jason Thompson on Jan 10, 2012 15:59:06 GMT -4
Interesting that she says she hears a "terrible noise" and sees the president in distress, but does nothing. Yes, isn't it amazing how civillians unexpectedly being shot at can freeze in panic and stay down even when they see others in distress? Please provide the reference for this. The report I have read identifies a small round hole (which is larger on the inside of the skull, in keeping with the damage done by a bullet entering from that section) in the rear right of the head as the entry, and says that a lot of the right side of the head was missing as a result of the damage down by the passing/exiting bullet, which came out in the right front temple area. Yes. Provide that evidence. Don't just say it exists and expect us all to leap through your rhetorical hoops. You've been here long enough to know what is expected of you here now.
|
|
|
Post by Jason Thompson on Dec 20, 2011 11:44:39 GMT -4
Then please feel free to explain to us at any time how a gunshot wound from the front causes blood and brains to spray out back along the path of the bullet. Bullets are designed to penetrate, deform and damage on their way through. Entry wounds tend to be neat while exit wounds are not. The spray of blood and brains from a gunshot wound to the head comes from the exit wound, therefore Kennedy must have been shot in the head from behind.
|
|
|
Post by Jason Thompson on Dec 20, 2011 11:02:07 GMT -4
Yes, the 'Hollywood can make anything look real' line is painfully flawed to a huge number of people.
|
|
|
Post by Jason Thompson on Dec 20, 2011 4:30:37 GMT -4
the warren commission was a trial in every respect, except there was not anyone present for the defense of Oswald. Then by definition it was not a trial. The word 'trial' literally requires three participants: prosecutor, defendant and arbiter. There was no such structure, therefore this was not a trial. history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/report/html/HSCA_Report_0048a.htmThere you go. The section of the HSCA report that refers to the acoustical evidence. The only part of said report that refers to any evidence that Oswald was not the only gunman. Go and look it up. There has been much made of it in the past few years. I heard about it eight years ago. First show that there should be one. The committee was dissolved after the report was published. If you don't expect the findings of the HSCA to result in a retraction or alteration of the Warren Commission report, why should you expect such a retraction or alteration of the HSCA report? Because, as usual, you only want reality to conform to your expectations.
|
|
|
Post by Jason Thompson on Dec 19, 2011 19:53:02 GMT -4
Completely wrong - many peolpe (including real experts) have tried to deny Pokrovsky's modeling work, but so far the attempts have been either laughable or just miserable. Several have been presented in this thread. Do you care to challenge them on technical grounds, or will you simply sit there brushing it all away with a wave of your hand? What are your technical qualifications? It is very typical of hoax believers on this and other discussion boards to assume everyone who supports the Apollo missions is American. This is the worldwide web, so I suggest you broaden your outlook. Just as well no-one here is doing that then. The way real life questions are handled is nothing like your method of simply making unssupported assertion after unsupported assertion. For the umpteenth time, do you have anything in the way of evidence to bring to this discussion? Prove that claim or retract it. By the time Nixon took office the Apollo program had already made flights of full-sized rockets. Nixon may have been the guy at the top during the most famous phase of the Apollo program, but he was a long way from being so when the actual development and construction work was undertaken. Apollo 4 and Apollo 6 flew before he took office, for instance. Seriuosly, doesn't any hoax believer know how long Apollo actually took to develop and build?
|
|
|
Post by Jason Thompson on Dec 19, 2011 19:45:15 GMT -4
yes the same man who as vice president was under investigation for corruption and links to murders...what happened to that investigation? Irrelevant. Any new President coming into office because his predecessor was killed would be expected to set up a commission to investigate that death, so the fact that LBJ did so is in no way suspect, no matter how many times you say it is.
|
|
|
Post by Jason Thompson on Dec 19, 2011 14:29:04 GMT -4
If you can't say with absolute certainty why they met, then you can't venture a guess, because you don't know. Why is that a valid argument for you to use against those who disagree with you but not for us to use? We are arguing the same point: NONE of us know why they met, but politicians meeting behind closed doors is NOT suspect: it is a common part of their job.
|
|
|
Post by Jason Thompson on Dec 19, 2011 13:45:31 GMT -4
twik why is it that the important point is ignored. You are hardly one to criticise for that, given how many things you have ignored in your time on this board. What?! A senior political figure in the government met with some more senior political figures in the government?! Well it must be a conspiracy then, because politicians never get together at any other time to, you know, do their jobs, do they? Prove that was the objective. I say the Warren Commission conducted an enquiry to find out who did it, and Oswald was the prime suspect. What?! The new President appointed a commission to find out who shot the old President? You're kidding!! Oswald was dead. This was not a trial, it was an enquiry. If you don't understand the difference you have no business arguing your case. Ignored or dismissed for lack of corroboration? Statements to trials and enquiries are often dismissed, based on many factors. The mere fact of their dismissal is not evidence of foul play. The findings of the commission you cited as evidence that there was a conspiracy must be questioned based on the critical analysis of the acoustic evidence. Would you care to acknowledge this?
|
|
|
Post by Jason Thompson on Dec 17, 2011 4:12:56 GMT -4
The moon picture books published in early 1970s were either Disney kind of books with very bad quality pics (from a gravel pit and some with lamp lightning - some from Langley flight simulator) or geological books where only Metric/Panoramic camera pictures were used. Absolute rubbish. Why do you insist on simply lying about stuff we know was available at that time?
|
|
|
Post by Jason Thompson on Dec 17, 2011 4:11:13 GMT -4
It is strange - I was using and teaching computer graphics in early 1970s Then show how such technology could be used to generate the Apollo images. A few weeks after the missions. You are confusing 'published' with 'every picture being printed in a free magazine supplement. You might have had to go and get the pictures frmo a particular source, but they were available. And I repeat: are you conceding that your original statement about them not being published until the 1990s was incorrect? New to you does not mean new to everyone. What we have now is new high-res scans of the pictures being made available as internet capabilities make such high-res images easier and quicker to download. Remember when downloading a five minute, massively compressed, 400 x 300 pixel video online took an hour or so? Now we can have HD YouTube videos. Technology improves, so what we can get online in terms of high-res video and pictures improves. Oh very well done. Some photographs taken from orbit at the same time as the EVA photos on the surface have the same shadows is somehow suspect? Really? So what? It was useful in the two later missions. Again I ask: how were those panoramic and mapping pictures taken? The cameras' film canisters had to be returned to Earth for processing: a procedure very well documented as being performed by an astronaut on an EVA retriving them from the camera mounted in the SIM bay of the service module. The photographic and film trail for that shows quite clearly that what was retrieved by the Russians was a boilerplate which had so many obvious differences from what was stacked and launched on Apollo 13 no-one with eyes could seriously confuse them.
|
|
|
Post by Jason Thompson on Dec 17, 2011 3:51:33 GMT -4
summarize here where he failed in his calculations and we can evaluate your science. That has already been done, several times here on this thread. The source of his material is actually irrelevant. it is his interpretation that is wrong. I'll ask it again, though: how do you square his calculation of the speed at staging with the observed and easily calculated acceleration of the rocket in the first 12 seconds of the flight?
|
|