"If Jet-Effects Caused Head Snaps Then Farts Would Make You Fly"
Gil Jesus
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/e50a51ac6793ee1e
YoHarvey
> NO WONDER THE FLYING A**HOLES SUPPORT IT.
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/e50a51ac6793ee1e
And this is the moron claiming he went to college roflmao, roflmao.
aeffects
> NO WONDER THE FLYING A**HOLES SUPPORT IT.
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/e50a51ac6793ee1e
R-O-T-F-L-M-F-A-O
Sam McClung
oswalddidit hot air
"Gil Jesus" <gjj...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:60236203-e0f0-4fed...@p37g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
tomnln
We were told that the head "Goes Forward with considerable violence".
"Sam McClung" <mcc...@newsguy.com> wrote in message
news:gmafc...@news3.newsguy.com...
David Von Pein
Repeating the question that Bud has asked the CT-Kooks more than once:
If it's not a so-called "jet effect" that's causing it, then what IS
causing the melon in this video to move TOWARD THE PERSON FIRING THE
GUN?:
aeffects
sitdown you flagrant turd and for the record Dudster knows little
concerning the death of JFK, you, even less which amounts to known at
all, you copy & paste .john wannabe.....
Did you hear the latest (within the past week) Mark Lane interview on
BlackOp radio? He de-nuts daBugliosi...... Great stuff, spend an
hour.....
quote on " the entire book Reclaiming History is a lie...." oh-wee
good stuff...Kinda makes the Jet Effect seem insignificant....
ROTFLMFAO!
Sam McClung
enforcement, was in dealey plaza during the assassination
and ran to the (north) grassy knoll after the shooting
stopped
"tomnln" <tom...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:EU3il.2238$Pc....@newsfe10.iad...
Dave Reitzes
> NO WONDER THE FLYING A**HOLES SUPPORT IT.
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/e50a51ac6793ee1e
Actually, Gil, you have it all backwards. There is no handgun or rifle
on earth that could have generated enough power to throw the
President's head back as seen in the Z fim. (Even CT David Mantik is
on record acknowledging this simple observation of physics.)
Where did the bullet that killed JFK come from? Check out:
http://www.jfk-online.com/jfk100shot5.html
Dave
YoHarvey
Duncan MacPherson, author of "Bullet Penetration" and considered the
father of Wound Ballistics:
G: It is common knowledge that, as captured by Abraham Zapruder,
President Kennedy's head and upper torso lurch energetically
immediately following the explosion of his head. Could this movement
have been caused by the directly transferred momentum of a bullet?
That is, can a bullet "push" somebody like that?
MacP: No, and no. The movement of a body due to bullet momentum cannot
be greater than the movement of the same body if it was holding the
gun that fired the bullet. This is a result of elementary physics and
is not disputed by anyone who understands physics. The major
frustrating feature of the Kennedy assassination phenomenon is the
willingness of people to pretend to talk authoritatively on subjects
they know absolutely nothing about, especially things related to
firearms. This body recoil is one favorite. Another is the "puff of
smoke from the grassy knoll"; the theory here seems to be that someone
shot Kennedy with a flintlock (modern firearms don't make a puff of
smoke on firing as black powder rounds do).
G: If the effects observed on the Zapruder film are not the result of
a direct "push" by a bullet, what could account for JFK's movements?
MacP: In general, body movement in response to nervous system trauma
is a result of contractions in body muscles. This is related to
movements of your leg when a doctor raps you on the knee with his
little mallet; your leg moves because a nerve induces a muscle
contraction, not because it was driven into motion by the force of the
tiny rap with the mallet. The slightly peculiar location of Kennedy's
arms after the 399 bullet impact is known as Thorburn's position,
after a description by Dr. William Thorburn in an 1889 paper on
injuries to the area of the spinal chord damaged by bullet 399. In
addition to this effect, simulations have shown that bullet strikes to
the skull that result in blowing out a significant hole upon exit
result in skull recoil towards the bullet entry direction. The
dynamics of this are a little complicated, but are more related to the
pressure inside the skull cavity created by the bullet passage than to
effects directly related to the bullet movement. The dynamics of this
kind of impact were demonstrated independently in testing by Dr. Luis
Alvarez and by Dr. John K. Lattimer et al.
G: Have you had a chance to review the JFK-related wound ballistics
work of Drs. John Lattimer and Martin Fackler? If so, can you provide
a brief critique?
MacP: I have read this work and have referred to it to look up
Thorburn's name in the previous answer. The main aspect of the Kennedy
assassination that would surprise most people is how uncontroversial
the wound ballistics aspects are among the physicians in the country
who are most experienced in gunshot trauma (I am not one of these, but
have talked to several). It is a sad truth that most autopsy reports
are full of errors and inconsistencies which are obvious to any
careful review; it shouldn't be like this, but it is. The problems
with the Kennedy autopsy do not require a conspiracy to explain, they
are more or less business as usual exposed to the glare of careful
examination. Likewise, the work of Lattimer and Fackler is simply a
very sound, complete, and careful examination and reconstruction of
that facts that should be the standard in all cases, but isn't.
Some argument can be made in the typical investigation that the talent
and resources just are not available to meet a first class standard,
but one can hardly argue that this situation is applicable to the
Warren report. The Warren commission should have used all of the best
talent available to make the most complete analysis possible, but they
didn't. In fairness, it is always easier to criticize than to
perform.
G: Is it possible to deform a bullet the way CE399 is deformed by
firing the bullet into water?
MacP: Probably not. Bullet 399 really isn't deformed much; a point
often made by those who dispute the "single bullet" conclusion. The
bullets used in this assassination are much more resistant to
deformation than most rifle bullets. The major effect in bullet 399 is
"toothpasting", i.e., a small amount of the lead core has been
squeezed out of the jacket base like toothpaste from a tube. This
probably occurred when the bullet hit Connally's ribs at a high yaw
angle after it had been considerably slowed by travel through soft
tissue (a bullet in a reconstructed firing showed deformation similar
to and slightly larger than bullet 399). The bullet would yaw in
water, but probably would not "toothpaste" without contact with a hard
object.
G: Is the deformation of CE399 inconsistent with its having caused all
of JFK's and JBC's non-fatal wounds?
MacP: No. Reconstructions prove that bullet 399 is consistent with
having caused all these wounds.
G: Are you aware of the claim that CE399 was "switched" from a six-
groove bullet to a four-groove bullet? If so, will you give us your
professional opinion?
MacP: No knowledge about this claim. For about 30 years, I have paid
almost no attention to any aspect of the Kennedy assassination not
directly related to wound ballistics.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And there you have it. One more scientist who has done original wound
ballistics work who agrees with all the other wound ballistics
scientists with any knowledge of the JFK case: the popular opinions
regarding the movements of JFK's head and upper torso following z-313
and the condition of CE399 are not at all inconsistent with the
conclusion that all of Kennedy's and Connally's wounds were caused by
shots fired from behind the limousine.
It is stuff like this that convinces me that, long after the emotional
partisanship fades away, history's verdict will be that Lee Harvey
Oswald is the villain of this piece.
bigdog
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/e50a51ac6793ee1e
That's how you can tell when a fly farts. He flies in a straight line.
Gil Jesus
1. The President's head was not a melon.
2. Penn and Teller are ILLUSIONISTS.
GO BS SOMEONE ELSE, DAVID.
YoHarvey
As Duncan MacPherson stated it above, it's called skull recoil. This
statement by MacPherson must have been directed towards Jesus:
muc...@gmail.com
> On Feb 3, 6:28 pm, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > Repeating the question that Bud has asked the CT-Kooks more than once:
>
> > If it's not a so-called "jet effect" that's causing it, then what IS
> > causing the melon in this video to move TOWARD THE PERSON FIRING THE
> > GUN?:
>
> >www.youtube.com/watch?v=62gvoKyODu4
>
> 1. The President's head was not a melon.
The President's head was unavailable.
> 2. Penn and Teller are ILLUSIONISTS.
And you're a conspiracy kook.
> GO BS SOMEONE ELSE, DAVID.
Melon snaps = BS?
bigdog
> 1. The President's head was not a melon.
>
> 2. Penn and Teller are ILLUSIONISTS.
>
So what is your point, Chico. Are you saying there is a different set
of physical laws that apply to melons that do not apply to skulls or
are you claiming the presentation was an illusion. Or are you just
hedging your bets here.
aeffects
Kennedy assassination phenomenon? What phenomenon? At least two people
are shooting at the President, at least 4 bullet holes are present,
and he's dead. Duh!
The phenomenon here is simple, some continue to believe the WCR,
revert to foolish theories call "jet effect" simply because they can't
deal with a conspiracy to kill a sitting President of the United
States. (end of the Lone Nut/SBT story)
Dave Reitzes
Why does Gil Jesus start a thread when all he apparently wants to do
is avoid evidence?
Lurkers, check out this article to which Mr. Jesus refuses to respond:
http://www.jfk-online.com/jfk100shot5.html
See if the "back and to the left" thing really stands up.
Dave
Dave Reitzes
> On Feb 5, 5:29�am, YoHarvey <bailey...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Feb 5, 8:03�am, Gil Jesus <gjjm...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Feb 3, 6:28 pm, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > > > Repeating the question that Bud has asked the CT-Kooks more than once:
>
> > > > If it's not a so-called "jet effect" that's causing it, then what IS
> > > > causing the melon in this video to move TOWARD THE PERSON FIRING THE
> > > > GUN?:
>
> > > >www.youtube.com/watch?v=62gvoKyODu4
>
> > > 1. The President's head was not a melon.
>
> > > 2. Penn and Teller are ILLUSIONISTS.
>
> > > GO BS SOMEONE ELSE, DAVID.
>
> > As Duncan MacPherson stated it above, it's called skull recoil. �This
> > statement by MacPherson must have been directed towards Jesus:
>
> > The major frustrating feature of the Kennedy assassination phenomenon
> > is the willingness of people to pretend to talk authoritatively on
> > subjects they know absolutely nothing about, especially things related
> > to firearms.
>
> Kennedy assassination phenomenon? What phenomenon? At least two people
> are shooting at the President,
Your evidence for this?
>at least 4 bullet holes are present,
Where?
> and he's dead. Duh!
>
> The phenomenon here is simple, some continue to believe the WCR,
I've never met an LNer who arrived at their position simply because
they believed what they read in the WCR. Most of the LNs I know
started out as CTs and changed their minds because of the research
they conducted.
> revert to foolish theories call "jet effect" simply because they can't
> deal with a conspiracy to kill a sitting President of the United
> States. (end of the Lone Nut/SBT story)
A couple questions, Dave.
You are familiar with Dr. David Mantik, are you not? The guy whom one
James Fetzer, on p. 219 of the book MURDER IN DEALEY PLAZA, calls one
of the most qualified individuals to ever review the forensic evidence
in JFK's death?
You're familiar, I'm sure, with Dr. Mantik's opinion, quite consistent
with that of renowned forensics experts like Vincent DiMaio, that no
known hand-held weapon could have produced the head snap in the
Zapruder film? If not, let me quote: "I do not believe that a frontal
shot, with any reasonable sized rifle or bullet, could produce the
observed head snap -- too much energy is required."
This is quoted in at least one of my online articles; the actual
citation is: David W. Mantik, M.D., Ph.D., "Special Effects in the
Zapruder Film: How the Film of the Century was Edited," anthologized
in James H. Fetzer, Ph.D., ed., Assassination Science (Chicago:
Catfeet Press, 1998), p. 264.
Are you prepared to challenge Dr. Mantik's opinion, Dave?
Second, you seem to be addressing the head snap as an item of evidence
in an authentic motion picture record of the assassination. Is that
your opinion -- that the head snap in the film is an authentic record
of what happened?
Dave
The truth about "Back and to the left":
http://www.jfk-online.com/jfk100shot5.html
Herbert Blenner
Blowing fruit out of far side of the melon shifted the center of
gravity toward the shooter. The weight of the melon though reduced now
generated a torque that caused the melon to roll toward the shooter.
Herbert
David Von Pein
>>> "Blowing fruit out of far side of the melon shifted the center of gravity toward the shooter. The weight of the melon[,] though reduced[,] now generated a torque that caused the melon to roll toward the shooter." <<<
Sounds to me as though you've just described something very similar to
a "jet effect".
Score one for Penn & Teller.
YoHarvey
Duncan MacPherson, author of "Bullet Penetration" and considered the
father of Wound Ballistics:
G: It is common knowledge that, as captured by Abraham Zapruder,
President Kennedy's head and upper torso lurch energetically
immediately following the explosion of his head. Could this movement
have been caused by the directly transferred momentum of a bullet?
That is, can a bullet "push" somebody like that?
MacP: No, and no. The movement of a body due to bullet momentum
cannot
be greater than the movement of the same body if it was holding the
gun that fired the bullet. This is a result of elementary physics and
is not disputed by anyone who understands physics. The major
frustrating feature of the Kennedy assassination phenomenon is the
willingness of people to pretend to talk authoritatively on subjects
they know absolutely nothing about, especially things related to
Dave Reitzes
> For the First 12 yeaqrs there was NO "jet effect".
Sure, and there was no such thing as gravity until Sir Isaac Newton,
er, invented it in 1687.
Dave
Herbert Blenner
Sounds to me as though you've lost your equilibrium.
Place a melon with a scooped out section comparable in size to the one
in the video on a level table so that missing fruit is on a side. As
soon as you release the melon it rolls in the direction that carries
the missing fruit toward the top.
>
> Score one for Penn & Teller.
Indeed, log one more victim of junk science as told by Penn & Teller.
Herbert
David Von Pein
Herbert,
Well, Penn & Teller's melon experiment aside, we know beyond all doubt
(via the experts who know about such things) that a bullet cannot and
will not move a human head violently and substantially in ANY
direction. So, what do you think causes JFK's head to move
dramatically backward after he was struck in the head by a bullet?
Since we KNOW beyond any doubt (per experts) that the violent rearward
movement is certainly not being caused by the tiny bullet
itself....then what's left, except some kind of "neuro" reaction....or
some kind of "jet effect" explanation?
Herb, please enlighten the masses as to the cause of President
Kennedy's to-the-rear head movement (after his head moves a very small
distance FORWARD at the critical moment of impact, of course, which is
perfectly consistent with the bullet coming from behind the President).
Gil Jesus
>
> Indeed, log one more victim of junk science as told by Penn & Teller.
When they have to depend on magicians and illusionists as
"researchers", the magic-bullet-jet propelled-brain-lost-evidence-king-
has-such-beautiful-clothes crowd reveals how desperate their position
really is.
That's why they aren't taken seriously.
David Von Pein
Gil, feel free to also take a crack at the question I asked Herb in my
last post.
Do you think the tiny bullet caused the violent to-the-rear movement
of JFK's head?
IOW -- Are all of those experts (like Dr. Charles Petty and others)
who said that the bullet itself could not have thrown Kennedy around
like a rag doll to be placed on the CTers' ever-growing list of
"liars" and "charlatans"?
Dave Reitzes
How about Vincent DiMaio, coroner, author, and one of the foremost
forensics experts in the world?
How about David Mantik (named by Jim Fetzer as one of the most
qualified experts ever to review the JFK evidence)? He too denies that
the bullet could have had anything to do with the head snap.
How about (gulp) Cyril Wecht? He's testified to this same thing in
several non-JFK related trials.
Besides, the trajectory from the knoll is all wrong to account for the
"back and to the left" movement in the first place. It amazes me how
few researchers are aware of this.
It's all here in an article of mine that Gil refuses to comment on,
and which he'll probably never read:
http://www.jfk-online.com/jfk100shot5.html
Gil can't face the evidence. All he has are attacks and evasions.
Dave
Herbert Blenner
> Herbert,
>
> Well, Penn & Teller's melon experiment aside, we know beyond all doubt
> (via the experts who know about such things) that a bullet cannot and
> will not move a human head violently and substantially in ANY
> direction. So, what do you think causes JFK's head to move
> dramatically backward after he was struck in the head by a bullet?
The early statements and WC testimonies of two dozen head shot
witnesses do not describe an energetic lurch of the head and torso.
http://mysite.verizon.net/a1eah71/twodozen.htm
Nor do the statements of the earliest viewers of the Time/Life copy of
the Zapruder film hint at any motion that even remotely suggested a
shot from the front.
>
> Since we KNOW beyond any doubt (per experts) that the violent rearward
> movement is certainly not being caused by the tiny bullet
> itself....then what's left, except some kind of "neuro" reaction....or
> some kind of "jet effect" explanation?
We know that omission of a frame from the Zapruder film would disrupt
the smoothness of motions. However, the inclusion of Z-313 disrupts
the otherwise smooth and graceful movements of Toni Foster.
http://mysite.verizon.net/a1eah71/backward.htm
Beyond all reasonable doubts our copy of the Zapruder film betrays
itself as altered.
>
> Herb, please enlighten the masses as to the cause of President
> Kennedy's to-the-rear head movement (after his head moves a very small
> distance FORWARD at the critical moment of impact, of course, which is
> perfectly consistent with the bullet coming from behind the President).
The distance of the forward head snap is irrelevant. Its velocity is
consistent with a bullet that transited from the rear to the front
essentially along a diameter of the head. Needless to say the wound
track as inferred by the Zapruder film conflicts with the medical
findings of a track confined to the right side of the head. For
details see the following link.
http://mysite.verizon.net/a1eah71/conflict.htm
You should note that the New York Daily News of November 24, 1963
reported that officer Hargis saw a bullet spin Kennedy's head, just as
required by the medical evidence.
Herbert
Gil Jesus
I asked them to show me another real-death video where there was a
"jet effect".
They could not.
And THAT'S official.
Herbert Blenner
> On Feb 6, 3:45 am, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > >>> "Blowing fruit out of far side of the melon shifted the center of gravity toward the shooter. The weight of the melon[,] though reduced[,] now generated a torque that caused the melon to roll toward the shooter." <<<
>
> > Sounds to me as though you've just described something very similar to
> > a "jet effect".
>
> > Score one for Penn & Teller.
>
> Duncan MacPherson, author of "Bullet Penetration" and considered the
> father of Wound Ballistics:
>
> G: It is common knowledge that, as captured by Abraham Zapruder,
> President Kennedy's head and upper torso lurch energetically
> immediately following the explosion of his head. Could this movement
> have been caused by the directly transferred momentum of a bullet?
> That is, can a bullet "push" somebody like that?
The early statements and WC testimonies of two dozen head shot
witnesses do not describe an energetic lurch of the head and torso.
http://mysite.verizon.net/a1eah71/twodozen.htm
Nor do the statements of the earliest viewers of the Time/Life copy of
the Zapruder film hint at any motion that even remotely suggested a
shot from the front.
>
> MacP: No, and no. The movement of a body due to bullet momentum
> cannot
> be greater than the movement of the same body if it was holding the
> gun that fired the bullet. This is a result of elementary physics and
> is not disputed by anyone who understands physics.
The huge sums of money spent by the USG to purchase reduced recoil
weapons
shows that your authority is just another charlatan with a yes man
complex.
> The major
> frustrating feature of the Kennedy assassination phenomenon is the
> willingness of people to pretend to talk authoritatively on subjects
> they know absolutely nothing about, especially things related to
> firearms. This body recoil is one favorite.
If MacP were worth his salt then he would have explained that the
quality of the head and torso motions disallow a mechanical reaction
to a gunshot to the head. Initially the head would move to the limit
permitted by its attachment to the torso.
During this brief snap the head is stationary relative to the torso.
After reaching the limit the head shares its angular momentum with the
torso. Since the moment of inertia of the torso and head is
approximately forty times the inertia moment of the head alone, a
mechanical reaction to a head shot would consistent of a torso and
head movement with an angular speed of about fortieth of the angular
speed of the head alone. In other words, if a motion picture camera
filmed the event then we would not see both the composite motion of
the head and torso and the solitary movement of the head.
> Another is the "puff of
> smoke from the grassy knoll"; the theory here seems to be that
> someone
> shot Kennedy with a flintlock (modern firearms don't make a puff of
> smoke on firing as black powder rounds do).
MacP forgot to tell us that a modern firearm that smokes needs a
cleaning.
Herbert
justm...@gmail.com
Unlike you who apparently likes to look at videos of people being shot
in the head, some of us don't.
Not to mention the fact that there could be hundreds of these type of
cases, unfortunate for you not everyone that is shot is the head is
caught on film. Moron!
David Von Pein
>>> "Beyond all reasonable doubts[,] our copy of the Zapruder film betrays itself as altered." <<<
Oh, good Lord.
~sigh~
From my "Reclaiming History" book review:
"The reality is that even today, it is highly doubtful that any
of the most modern technological advances available in film and
photography could do what the buffs said was done [to the Zapruder
Film] over four decades ago. It unquestionably could not have been
done back then. ....
"But all of this is irrelevant, since the NPIC [National
Photographic Interpretation Center in Washington, D.C.] was not
equipped...to duplicate any kind of color motion picture film, which
the Zapruder 8-millimeter home movie was. Over the course of well over
40 years, no evidence has ever emerged to dispute this fact." -- Vince
Bugliosi; Pages 352 and 355 of "RH" Endnotes
DVP: And I'm still waiting for a kooky "Z-Film alterationist" to tell
me (with a straight face) why on this Earth a band of sophisticated
film-fakers decided to alter the Zapruder movie and yet NOT ALTER the
very thing that spells out "conspiracy" to most people viewing the
movie -- i.e., THE REAR HEAD SNAP?
Were the film-alterers simply too pre-occupied with the color of Mary
Moorman's shoes and socks to worry about such trivialities like that
head snap to the rear (which, more than any other single thing, was
probably the prime catalyst that sparked the creation of the HSCA in
the late 1970s)?
Or: Were the film-fakers just freaking idiots?!
~shrug~
Herbert Blenner
> >>> "Beyond all reasonable doubts[,] our copy of the Zapruder film betrays itself as altered." <<<
>
> Oh, good Lord.
>
> ~sigh~
Show us how that inclusion of Z-313 among its neighboring frames
smooths the motions of Toni Foster. Anything less than a graphic
demonstration is just blowing hot air.
Herbert
tomnln
"Dave Reitzes" <drei...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:fbae7631-0eb9-4ab6...@w24g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
Dave
For the First 12 years we were told by Gov't/Media that "The head goes
Forward with considerable viiolence".
aeffects
the flagrant turd knows no bounds, has no class AND is a complete dolt
full of silly ideas that go nowhere and in serious need of friends -
which she/he/it thinks he/she/it will make with acj Lone Nut aliases,
now THAT is moronic!
aeffects
> On Feb 6, 5:51 am, Herbert Blenner <a1ea...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Indeed, log one more victim of junk science as told by Penn & Teller.
the morons play to half empty houses these day's... not even good
illusionists
aeffects
> On Feb 5, 12:02 pm, aeffects <aeffect...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Feb 5, 5:29 am, YoHarvey <bailey...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Feb 5, 8:03 am, Gil Jesus <gjjm...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Feb 3, 6:28 pm, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > Repeating the question that Bud has asked the CT-Kooks more than once:
>
> > > > > If it's not a so-called "jet effect" that's causing it, then what IS
> > > > > causing the melon in this video to move TOWARD THE PERSON FIRING THE
> > > > > GUN?:
>
> > > > >www.youtube.com/watch?v=62gvoKyODu4
>
> > > > 1. The President's head was not a melon.
>
> > > > 2. Penn and Teller are ILLUSIONISTS.
>
> > > > GO BS SOMEONE ELSE, DAVID.
>
> > > As Duncan MacPherson stated it above, it's called skull recoil. This
> > > statement by MacPherson must have been directed towards Jesus:
>
> > > The major frustrating feature of the Kennedy assassination phenomenon
> > > is the willingness of people to pretend to talk authoritatively on
> > > subjects they know absolutely nothing about, especially things related
> > > to firearms.
>
> > Kennedy assassination phenomenon? What phenomenon? At least two people
> > are shooting at the President,
>
> Your evidence for this?
ahh Dave, I'm not hindered in the least by the WCR, that be YOU, son!
> >at least 4 bullet holes are present,
>
> Where?
JFK's head, JFK's neck, JFK's back, JConnelly's side
> > and he's dead. Duh!
>
> > The phenomenon here is simple, some continue to believe the WCR,
>
> I've never met an LNer who arrived at their position simply because
> they believed what they read in the WCR. Most of the LNs I know
> started out as CTs and changed their minds because of the research
> they conducted.
flawed reserarch....
> > revert to foolish theories call "jet effect" simply because they can't
> > deal with a conspiracy to kill a sitting President of the United
> > States. (end of the Lone Nut/SBT story)
>
> A couple questions, Dave.
>
> You are familiar with Dr. David Mantik, are you not?
I now him and presented with him once...
The guy whom one
> James Fetzer, on p. 219 of the book MURDER IN DEALEY PLAZA, calls one
> of the most qualified individuals to ever review the forensic evidence
> in JFK's death?
>
> You're familiar, I'm sure, with Dr. Mantik's opinion, quite consistent
> with that of renowned forensics experts like Vincent DiMaio, that no
> known hand-held weapon could have produced the head snap in the
> Zapruder film? If not, let me quote: "I do not believe that a frontal
> shot, with any reasonable sized rifle or bullet, could produce the
> observed head snap -- too much energy is required."
Dave, if the Zapruder film is altered all the above is a Lone Nut
wetdream... Have you conversed with Dr. Mantik concerning his ideas
about Z-film alteration? Second, you assume I support a shot/hit from
the knoll... don't!
> This is quoted in at least one of my online articles; the actual
> citation is: David W. Mantik, M.D., Ph.D., "Special Effects in the
> Zapruder Film: How the Film of the Century was Edited," anthologized
> in James H. Fetzer, Ph.D., ed., Assassination Science (Chicago:
> Catfeet Press, 1998), p. 264.
it can be quoted on every every Lone Nut whackos website...
> Are you prepared to challenge Dr. Mantik's opinion, Dave?
see above...
> Second, you seem to be addressing the head snap as an item of evidence
> in an authentic motion picture record of the assassination. Is that
> your opinion -- that the head snap in the film is an authentic record
> of what happened?
my opinion is simple Dave, and despite your fondest wishes: the time,
expertise, equipment and know-how was available to alter the Zapruder
Film in 1963-64.
aeffects
<snip>
> Were the film-alterers simply too pre-occupied with the color of Mary
> Moorman's shoes and socks to worry about such trivialities like that
> head snap to the rear (which, more than any other single thing, was
> probably the prime catalyst that sparked the creation of the HSCA in
> the late 1970s)?
didn't that esteemed panel come to the conclusion that a Conspiracy
murdered JFK? As simple yes or no will do
<snip>
bigdog
Hey, Chico. Can you point to any experiment which shows that a high
powered rifle fired from the front could cause JFK's head to move
backward as dramatically as we see in the Z-film?
Dave Reitzes
You're the one complaining about the jet effect, Dave. Why bother if
you think the Z film was altered?
Have you conversed with Dr. Mantik concerning his ideas
> about Z-film alteration?
I told you precisely what I think of Mantik's theories several years
ago. I'm sure you'll recall:
http://www.jfk-online.com/drngmantics.html
Second, you assume I support a shot/hit from
> the knoll... don't!
I have no idea what you "support." I don't think I've ever seen you
post anything but insults.
> > This is quoted in at least one of my online articles; the actual
> > citation is: David W. Mantik, M.D., Ph.D., "Special Effects in the
> > Zapruder Film: How the Film of the Century was Edited," anthologized
> > in James H. Fetzer, Ph.D., ed., Assassination Science (Chicago:
> > Catfeet Press, 1998), p. 264.
>
> it can be quoted on every every Lone Nut whackos website...
>
> > Are you prepared to challenge Dr. Mantik's opinion, Dave?
>
> see above...
You're the one complaining about the jet effect, Dave.
> > Second, you seem to be addressing the head snap as an item of evidence
> > in an authentic motion picture record of the assassination. Is that
> > your opinion -- that the head snap in the film is an authentic record
> > of what happened?
>
> my opinion is simple Dave, and despite your fondest wishes: the time,
> expertise, equipment and know-how was available to alter the Zapruder
> Film in 1963-64.
Mr. Healy seems awfully reluctant to explain what he thinks actually
happened in Dealey Plaza.
I guess he has his reasons.
Dave Reitzes
> "Dave Reitzes" <dreit...@aol.com> wrote in message
Uh, no, it was merely Dan Rather who said that, and he obviously was
wrong. So what? We today can view the film under infinitely better
circumstances than he could.
It made no more difference then than it does now, Tom. The origin of a
bullet has little to do with any movements subsequently made by the
body it strikes. Any forensics expert will tell you this -- even Cyril
Wecht. It's only amateur sleuths who think bullets can send people
flying around like in the movies.
Time to accept reality, Tom. The authenticated autopsy materials show
us precisely where JFK was shot and where the bullet originated --
from above and behind.
Dave
tomnln
Dave
They even "Transposed Frames" 314-315 in volume XVIII.
Giving the impression that the head went Forward.
Life magazine also Lied about the President being turned far to his right
waving to the crowd, exposing his throat to the sniper behind him.
SEE>>> http://whokilledjfk.net/media_page.htm
SEE>>> http://whokilledjfk.net/single_bullet.htm
SEE>>> http://whokilledjfk.net/danrather.htm
Sam McClung
> Life magazine
i add: a skull and bones publication
> also Lied about the President being turned far to his right waving to the
> crowd, exposing his throat to the sniper behind him.
time/life, the skull and bones creation, not only lied about that, but also
bought the zapruder film the day after the assassination and kept it from
the public until liberated by groden on the geraldo (cia) rivera show
Dave Reitzes
It's just one evasion after another from Tom.
Let me recap the truth he cannot dispute:
The direction of the "head snap" made no more difference then than it
does now, Tom. The origin of a bullet has little to do with any
movements subsequently made by the body it strikes. Any forensics
expert will tell you this -- even Cyril Wecht. It's only amateur
sleuths who think bullets can send people flying around like in the
movies.
Time to accept reality, Tom. The authenticated autopsy materials show
us precisely where JFK was shot and where the bullet originated --
from above and behind.
Dave
The truth about "back and to the left":
http://www.jfk-online.com/jfk100shot5.html
Herbert Blenner
Exact and immutable physical laws describe the motion of an object
struck by a bullet. In fact they use the motion of a struck pendulum
to measure the striking speed of a stopped bullet.
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/Hbase/balpen.html
Suspending the pendulum from a spring of known constant enables
measurement of the striking velocity, speed and direction, of the
incoming bullet.
Apparently those that you accept as knowledgeable have narrow
horizons.
Herbert
>
> Time to accept reality, Tom. The authenticated autopsy materials show
> us precisely where JFK was shot and where the bullet originated --
> from above and behind.
>
> Dave
>
> The truth about "back and to the left":http://www.jfk-online.com/jfk100shot5.html- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
tomnln
David wrote;
It's just one evasion after another from Tom.
Let me recap the truth he cannot dispute:
The direction of the "head snap" made no more difference then than it
does now, Tom. The origin of a bullet has little to do with any
movements subsequently made by the body it strikes. Any forensics
expert will tell you this -- even Cyril Wecht. It's only amateur
sleuths who think bullets can send people flying around like in the
movies.
Time to accept reality, Tom. The authenticated autopsy materials show
us precisely where JFK was shot and where the bullet originated --
from above and behind.
Dave
The truth about "back and to the left":
http://www.jfk-online.com/jfk100shot5.html
I write;
David calls my quoting from the Official Records, "evasions".
David then proceeds to quote HIS Interpretations.
As for David's referance to "authenticated autopsy materials",
I refer him to Another Official Record>>>
http://whokilledjfk.net/horne__report.htm
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Herbert Blenner
> >>> "Beyond all reasonable doubts[,] our copy of the Zapruder film betrays itself as altered." <<<
>
> Oh, good Lord.
Anyone with strength of conviction would have posted the link that
formed the basis for the quoted conclusion.
http://mysite.verizon.net/a1eah71/backward.htm
Does David what a cracker?
Herbert