|
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 19:18:01 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 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 PhantomWolf on Jan 19, 2012 20:22:26 GMT -4
is it so hard to narrow it down to 1 or so frames? please just post the zapruder film frame that mirrors or is taken about the same moment as the altgens6 photo was taken, and let's discuss it. If it's so easy then you should be able to do it. Just post the frames of the film near when the photo was taken and show that none of them match the photo. Your claim, your burden of proof, don't demand others do it for you.
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Jan 18, 2012 17:55:47 GMT -4
Playdor, The problem you are facing here is that you are trying to force eye witness testimony into your version of events as it it is some form of gold standard and unimpeachable. Let's look at the "59 people said the car stopped" claim. In fact your link is to "The car slowed" not "the car stopped", but let's break down the numbers. Of the 59, 10 either never stated if the car stopped or slowed, but rather stated that the car accelerated away. 22 say it slowed, nearly stopped, braked, or weren't sure if it stopped or not. 27 say that it stopped, however only 6 of them say this happened during the shooting, 14 of them say that the car stopped after all of the shoots had been fired. From what is given from the other 11, it's not possible to tell if they meant during or after. No one claims that car stopped prior to the first shot. In all, of the people that felt the car slowed or stopped and stated when, 25 said it happened after the shooting, and 14 said it was during the shooting. About now it should be clear that many of your witnesses, who all saw the same thing, actually disagree with each other. We have some saying that the car slowed during the shooting (8), some that it stopped during the shooting (6), some that it slowed after the shooting (11), and still others (14) who say that it stopped after the shooting. They clearly can't all be right. This is the thing about eye wittiness testimony, it's notoriously bad. There have been a lot of studies into it, and the general conclusion is that while useful, it needs to be considered with a serious grain of salt because it relies on two things in which humans are very poor with, perception, and memory. This is why when photos and film disagree with eye-wittiness testimony, the rational person will generally discount the eye wittiness rather than jumping to the conclusion that the photos and film have been tapered with. It is far more likely that the eye witnesses are wrong in their details than that the film was magically altered. As long as you mainly rely on eye wittiness testimony, which is well known to be an extremely flawed type of evidence, and ignore the physical evidence (or claim the physical evidence was tampered with because it doesn't match the eye-witnesses,) you're not going to get anywhere.
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Jan 17, 2012 23:55:39 GMT -4
PhantomWolf i know and i agree with you, it could appear to be background. is it possible to know for sure? I think that given that it's in the wrong place for the crack which is seen in other photos taken later (it's too close to the rear vision mirror,) it's the wrong size (the crack is a lot smaller,) and the shape is clearly defined by Kennedy's shoulder and neck, the only logical conclusion has to be that it is something behind him and not a hole in the windscreen.
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Jan 17, 2012 23:48:17 GMT -4
gunshot...i believe there was 1 shot fired to this point. it most probably was from the grassy knoll, thru the windshield into the front of JFK's neck. Now that is a magic bullet. You are proposing that a bullet shot from the grassy knoll did more than a 90 degree turn in mid air, then went through the left hand side of the windshield without fragmenting, passed between the governer and his wife, and hit JFK, who was in the right hand back seat, in the neck? That would have to be the shot of the millenia.
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Jan 17, 2012 23:42:53 GMT -4
PhantomWolf in the windshield and in the front of JFK's neck bullet hole or background. anyone have a very high res Altgens 7 they could post...thanks Lopok at the edge of the "hole" and the contour of JKF's shoulder and neck. Amazing how the "hole" follows it isn't it? The "hole" is a light coloured top being worn by someone behind JFK.
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Jan 17, 2012 17:52:52 GMT -4
Where's the bullet hole?
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Jan 14, 2012 5:25:30 GMT -4
This is not true. Free neutrons will decay to a proton, an electron, and an antineutrino, with a half-life of about 15 min. A proton can absorb an electron and turn into a neutrino, in a process called electron capture. Sure on this? The sources I have seen say that neutrons decay into a proton, an electron, and a neutrino, while electrons colliding with protons can create a neutrino/anti-neutrino pair, absorb the neutrino and form a neutron.
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Jan 14, 2012 4:00:35 GMT -4
b - the person presenting it is completely out of their depth and has no knowledge whatsoever of how movies 'work', let alone the ability to analyse them meaningfully This has been pretty obvious, even before he suggested that someone "stretched" several frames of the film. But hey, he accepts Uncle Jim as an expert so.... Perhaps he'll be pulling out Jack's badgeman and faked Oswald backyard photos next.
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Jan 14, 2012 3:55:43 GMT -4
And of course, Playdor "knows" things without even knowing what real research looks like. Ah, well. Well using Uncle Jim as an expert didn't exactly endear me to his arguments. Anyone that thinks a guy who believes buildings should have acted like cardboard boxes is an expert has serious issues. With some of the claims Playdor is making I am wondering if he's a friend of 7forever from JREF.
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Jan 13, 2012 9:48:26 GMT -4
Looks like different sources say different things, with other possibilities for their origin being cosmic rays, or solar ejections. Seems even the NASA sources have to admit that no one is entirely sure as to where the particles come from. Likely to be some from all of the above surely? Not being a space radiation expert I'd say it's possible, though at first glance I'd suspect that cosmic rays are coming in pretty fast, and that'd effect their likelihood of being captured. As to the solar protons, one has to wonder what effect the outer belt would have on them and wonder how they would get down into the lower belts.
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Jan 13, 2012 9:43:52 GMT -4
Not to mention that the car windshield didn't have a hole in it when it arrived at the hospital. A chip and crack created from the inside yes, but no hole.
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Jan 13, 2012 8:29:56 GMT -4
The inner belt is mostly protons. These are formed by neutrons in the Earth's atmosphere being struck by cosmic rays and decaying into protons. You sure about that? I thought the trapped protons came directly from the sun. They're the nuclei of the most common element in the sun -- hydrogen -- and being charged particles they're caught in the earth's magnetic field just as electrons are. Looks like different sources say different things, with other possibilities for their origin being cosmic rays, or solar ejections. Seems even the NASA sources have to admit that no one is entirely sure as to where the particles come from. The explaination I gave is the one found in Wikipedia, which is sourced to Tascione, Thomas F. (1994). Introduction to the Space Environment, 2nd. Ed.. Malabar, Florida USA: Kreiger Publishing CO.. ISBN 0-89464-044-5.
|
|