Good-bye, James Files
Kenneth A. Rahn
I suppose you can't really say good-bye to someone you never said
hello to, but I will give James Files the benefit of the doubt on this
point. Now that Bob Vernon is actively pushing his new TV "special," I
thought it would be appropriate to remind everyone that Files's story, if
indeed it is really his, violates several major physical constraints of
the JFK assassination. I have had a web page on this subject for the last
couple of years, and Bob Vernon has taken major exception to it, to put it
mildly (but in the form of hurling epithets rather than refuting
evidence).
Perhaps the biggest physical constraint is that the XP-100 Fireball
doesn't have the oomph to create Kennedy's motions. It doesn't even come
close. This is very easy to demonstrate. You just look up the mass of the
bullet and its speed, factor in a couple of angles, and see how fast the
body can be pushed backward from the momentum. It is a much simpler
calculation than any that involve the explosion of the head. I have
recently redone this calculation, along with the same thing for a couple
hundred other bullets. Book values for a .221 round with the XP-100 are 50
grains and 2650 fps muzzle velocity. Files said that he used a .222 round
that would hit at 3100 fps, so I decided to grant him that and up the mass
to 60 grains, just to give him the benefit of the doubt. I used a downward
angle of 9 degrees and a horizontal angle of 118 degrees relative to the
plane of the Zapruder film (corresponding to the corner of the stockade
fence). I also let the bullet be totally absorbed by the body, because
Files said that his special mercury-loaded round would "fragmentate." With
an upper body of 85 pounds, the rearward velocity came out to about 0.3
fps. That value is well below the observed initial lurch of 0.8 fps
rearward and much farther below the final lurch of 2.8 fps. In other
words, Files's weapon and ammunition failed by factors of 3 to 9 to do the
job he claimed for it.
So when you read the continuing publicity about the coming "special,"
keep in mind that James Files could not have done what he claimed to.
Files and Vernon should not have forgotten about physics!
Incidentally, I did find several types of ammunition that could create
the initial lurch of 0.8 fps rearward. The are mostly in the Magnum or
Magnum Super category. Files should have said that he fired a different
kind of weapon!
Ken Rahn
9 February 2002
AnthonyMarsh
>
> To All,
>
> I suppose you can't really say good-bye to someone you never said
> hello to, but I will give James Files the benefit of the doubt on this
> point. Now that Bob Vernon is actively pushing his new TV "special," I
> thought it would be appropriate to remind everyone that Files's story, if
> indeed it is really his, violates several major physical constraints of
> the JFK assassination. I have had a web page on this subject for the last
> couple of years, and Bob Vernon has taken major exception to it, to put it
> mildly (but in the form of hurling epithets rather than refuting
> evidence).
I've been debunking the Files nonsense for many years, but we have to be
careful not to overdo it. Your analysis has a couple of flaws which do
not negate your particular argument against the Files scenario, but
could lead people to taking false positions.
> Perhaps the biggest physical constraint is that the XP-100 Fireball
> doesn't have the oomph to create Kennedy's motions. It doesn't even come
I don't know that anyone has ever quantified exactly how much energy in
terms of foot-pounds (if that is indeed the measure we need to use)
would be required to cause the motions of JFK which we see. I have
always objected to the double standard which some WC defenders display
when they flatly state that no shot from the front could cause the
movements and then claim that a M-C shot from behind caused JFK's head
to move forward 2.3 inches during one Zapruder frame. How many
foot-pounds were DEPOSITED inside JFK's head for that supposed shot? The
bullet did not stop inside the head and seemed to have done some further
damage to the limousine, so not all the energy that it hit with at 265
feet was deposited. Can that deposited energy move his head forward 2.3
inches in 1/18th of a second?
> close. This is very easy to demonstrate. You just look up the mass of the
> bullet and its speed, factor in a couple of angles, and see how fast the
> body can be pushed backward from the momentum. It is a much simpler
That is a false assumption. No one has ever said that a bullet moved all
of JFK's body in any particular direction. The question should be
whether any particular ammo can move the head violently. How much energy
is needed? We do not know for sure what bullet is assumed for the grassy
knoll shot. Careful analysis of the acoustical evidence suggests about
2200-2300 fps muzzle velocity. Medical evidence suggests that the size
of the bullet was compatible with the other 6.5 mm ammo used. Calculate
that based on a hit at 100 feet. Now, the type of bullet is also very
important. As Dr. Roger McCarthy of Failure Analysis Associates points
out, a typical ball bullet like CE 399 would not have deposited enough
energy because it is specifically designed to go through the body
without deformation or mushrooming. Other ammo can deposit much more
energy. In his example he produced a glycerin bullet by filling in the
tip of hollow-point bullet. The bullet produced a violent movement away
from the rifle and the bullet remained in the target and did not exit.
Another type of bullet which deposits much more energy is an explosive
bullet. In comparison tests done by Velex, an explosive bullet typically
delivered almost twice the amount of energy as its standard counterpart.
> calculation than any that involve the explosion of the head. I have
> recently redone this calculation, along with the same thing for a couple
> hundred other bullets. Book values for a .221 round with the XP-100 are 50
> grains and 2650 fps muzzle velocity. Files said that he used a .222 round
> that would hit at 3100 fps, so I decided to grant him that and up the mass
> to 60 grains, just to give him the benefit of the doubt. I used a downward
> angle of 9 degrees and a horizontal angle of 118 degrees relative to the
> plane of the Zapruder film (corresponding to the corner of the stockade
> fence). I also let the bullet be totally absorbed by the body, because
The acoustical evidence places the location of the rifle at about 10
feet west of the corner of the fence, but that minor difference should
not affect your computations.
> Files said that his special mercury-loaded round would "fragmentate." With
> an upper body of 85 pounds, the rearward velocity came out to about 0.3
> fps. That value is well below the observed initial lurch of 0.8 fps
Use the head only, not the entire upper body. The upper body is not
moved as a uniform mass. The torso follows the head. Recalculate using
10 pounds.
> rearward and much farther below the final lurch of 2.8 fps. In other
> words, Files's weapon and ammunition failed by factors of 3 to 9 to do the
> job he claimed for it.
But that is based on your false assumptions. Recalculate for the head
only and see what you come up with.
> So when you read the continuing publicity about the coming "special,"
> keep in mind that James Files could not have done what he claimed to.
> Files and Vernon should not have forgotten about physics!
> Incidentally, I did find several types of ammunition that could create
> the initial lurch of 0.8 fps rearward. The are mostly in the Magnum or
> Magnum Super category. Files should have said that he fired a different
> kind of weapon!
>
I would imagine that they have heavier bullets and higher muzzle
velocities?
> Ken Rahn
> 9 February 2002
--
Anthony Marsh
The Puzzle Palace http://www.boston.quik.com/amarsh
Herbert Blenner
>From: AnthonyMarsh ama...@quik.com
>Date: 2/9/03 7:09 PM Eastern Standard Time
>Message-id: <3E46EDAC...@quik.com>
>
>"Kenneth A. Rahn" wrote:
>>
>> To All,
>>
>> I suppose you can't really say good-bye to someone you never said
>> hello to, but I will give James Files the benefit of the doubt on this
>> point. Now that Bob Vernon is actively pushing his new TV "special," I
>> thought it would be appropriate to remind everyone that Files's story, if
>> indeed it is really his, violates several major physical constraints of
>> the JFK assassination. I have had a web page on this subject for the last
>> couple of years, and Bob Vernon has taken major exception to it, to put it
>> mildly (but in the form of hurling epithets rather than refuting
>> evidence).
>
>I've been debunking the Files nonsense for many years, but we have to be
>careful not to overdo it. Your analysis has a couple of flaws which do
>not negate your particular argument against the Files scenario, but
>could lead people to taking false positions.
>
>> Perhaps the biggest physical constraint is that the XP-100 Fireball
>> doesn't have the oomph to create Kennedy's motions. It doesn't even come
>
>
Anthony, you are promoting folklore. Loss of kinetic energy by the projectile
is unrelated to the induced motion of the target.
A 250-pound cannon ball moving at 20 feet per second has the same kinetic
energy as a 1/40 pound bullet traveling at 2000 feet per second. Now suppose
targets of equal mass stop the bullet and the cannon ball. Do you believe the
two targets would recoil with equal motion?
If you apply conservation of momentum to this problem then you find the target
hit by the cannon ball recoils at one hundred times the speed of the target
impacted by the bullet.
Herbert
John Fiorentino
Kenneth A. Rahn <kr...@uri.edu> wrote in message
news:b26ka...@enews2.newsguy.com...
Excellent post, as usual Dr. Rahn!
John F.
AnthonyMarsh
>
> >Subject: Re: Good-bye, James Files
> >From: AnthonyMarsh ama...@quik.com
> >Date: 2/9/03 7:09 PM Eastern Standard Time
> >Message-id: <3E46EDAC...@quik.com>
> >
> >"Kenneth A. Rahn" wrote:
> >>
> >> To All,
> >>
> >> I suppose you can't really say good-bye to someone you never said
> >> hello to, but I will give James Files the benefit of the doubt on this
> >> point. Now that Bob Vernon is actively pushing his new TV "special," I
> >> thought it would be appropriate to remind everyone that Files's story, if
> >> indeed it is really his, violates several major physical constraints of
> >> the JFK assassination. I have had a web page on this subject for the last
> >> couple of years, and Bob Vernon has taken major exception to it, to put it
> >> mildly (but in the form of hurling epithets rather than refuting
> >> evidence).
> >
> >I've been debunking the Files nonsense for many years, but we have to be
> >careful not to overdo it. Your analysis has a couple of flaws which do
> >not negate your particular argument against the Files scenario, but
> >could lead people to taking false positions.
> >
> >> Perhaps the biggest physical constraint is that the XP-100 Fireball
> >> doesn't have the oomph to create Kennedy's motions. It doesn't even come
> >
> >
>
> Anthony, you are promoting folklore. Loss of kinetic energy by the projectile
> is unrelated to the induced motion of the target.
>
I am not sure what point you are trying to make and what you think that
I stated incorrectly. What I am talking about is the percentage of
energy deposited by whatever bullet one wants to imagine. If only 10% of
the energy of the bullet is deposited in the target the effect will be
much less than if 90% of the energy is deposited. Do you understand
that? Do you agree or disagree?
Herbert Blenner
>Message-id: <3E470405...@quik.com>
You were talking "about how much energy in terms of foot-pounds (if that is
indeed the measure we need to use) would be required to cause the motions of
JFK which we see."
My point is we need to use momentum as a measure of the motion caused by a
bullet. It is as simple as subtraction. The momentum imparted to the victim is
the initial momentum of the bullet minus any momentum of the bullet after
exit.
Herbert
Ricky Tobias
Hi Ken,
I see you miscalculated the year. Does this change your numbers? ;-)
>
>
Ricky
"Ballistic Findings in the JFK Autopsy Photos".
An early draft with some errors is posted at:
http://karws.gso.uri.edu/JFK/Issues_and_evidence/Frontal_shot(s)/Tobias_frontal_shots/Tobias--Ballistics_Findings.html
Problems try:
http://karws.gso.uri.edu/JFK/JFK.html
Then go to: Issues and evidence
Then go to: Frontal shot(s)
or
go to: Notices and recent additions to the site
Then find above title posted April 11, 2001.
Kenneth A. Rahn
"Ricky Tobias" <Ric...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:c2ee4v0v32tmedmd3...@4ax.com...
And I have done all my checks right in 2003! :-)
Ken
Vern Pascal
have zero credibility in my book, and if you can't find any evidence of
conspiracy in the JFK Assassination like Rahn..well you may as well tell
us the earth is flat............Jeff.
Dr. Truth
Fireball and the ammo it uses/used. We did. Have him on tape. Not only
are Rahn's "physics" flawed, so is his disinfo. The inventor of the weapon
says that the bullet and the Fireball would MOST CERTAINLY cause a response
like you see in the Z film.
In fact, we interviewed several of the top Fireball CHAMPIONSHIP shooters in
the USA and ALL of them said the XP-100 could do what you see in the z-film.
We also fired MERCURY LOADED .222 shells in BLue, Texas several years back
and PROVED that the shell could have indeed caused what you see in the
Z-film.
Goodbye Ken Rahn. You're a lying son of a bitch.
Dr. Truth
Dr. Truth
Fireball and the ammo it uses/used. We did. Have him on tape. Not only
are Rahn's "physics" flawed, so is his disinfo. The inventor of the weapon
says that the bullet and the Fireball would MOST CERTAINLY cause a response
like you see in the Z film.
In fact, we interviewed several of the top Fireball CHAMPIONSHIP shooters in
the USA and ALL of them said the XP-100 could do what you see in the z-film.
We also fired MERCURY LOADED .222 shells in BLue, Texas several years back
and PROVED that the shell could have indeed caused what you see in the
Z-film.
Goodbye Ken Rahn. You're a lying son of a bitch.
"AnthonyMarsh" <ama...@quik.com> wrote in message
news:3E470405...@quik.com...
Dr. Truth
Fireball and the ammo it uses/used. We did. Have him on tape. Not only
are Rahn's "physics" flawed, so is his disinfo. The inventor of the weapon
says that the bullet and the Fireball would MOST CERTAINLY cause a response
like you see in the Z film.
In fact, we interviewed several of the top Fireball CHAMPIONSHIP shooters in
the USA and ALL of them said the XP-100 could do what you see in the z-film.
We also fired MERCURY LOADED .222 shells in BLue, Texas several years back
and PROVED that the shell could have indeed caused what you see in the
Z-film.
Goodbye Ken Rahn. You're a lying son of a bitch.
"Herbert Blenner" <a1e...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20030209220834...@mb-mn.aol.com...
Dr. Truth
Fireball and the ammo it uses/used. We did. Have him on tape. Not only
are Rahn's "physics" flawed, so is his disinfo. The inventor of the weapon
says that the bullet and the Fireball would MOST CERTAINLY cause a response
like you see in the Z film.
In fact, we interviewed several of the top Fireball CHAMPIONSHIP shooters in
the USA and ALL of them said the XP-100 could do what you see in the z-film.
We also fired MERCURY LOADED .222 shells in BLue, Texas several years back
and PROVED that the shell could have indeed caused what you see in the
Z-film.
Goodbye Ken Rahn. You're a lying son of a bitch.
"Vern Pascal" <lazu...@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:28364-3E...@storefull-2316.public.lawson.webtv.net...
Ed Cage
Excellent analogy Ken.. Not to mention that there
is really no shot at all from the GK.. The only one
that exists is the one Oliver..(gULp::) Stone used.
Can we say that name in here? Even that miserable
shot is one no sniper would pick unless he had a
death wish.. EXTREMELY VISIBLE to start with..
Then, that pesky corner wall is back again.. Anyone
who has lined up that truly rotten "SN" knows that
your vision of the limo is partially obstructed
until it pops out from behind the wall.. IF that was
the shot (Har-har) Son of BM had barely an instant
to identify, track, aim, & squeeze before the "X"
No way.. As a bonus roughly 75 people both SEE and
HEAR you.. (None did.) What does that tell ya?
THERE ARE NO OTHER SHOTS FROM GK!
NONE.
_____________________ Ed _______________________
"Kenneth A. Rahn" <kr...@uri.edu> wrote in message news:<b26ka...@enews2.newsguy.com>...
Kenneth A. Rahn
Let's see...you posted the same message to me five times here, and
without any hard evidence to rebut mine. Just tell me the weight of the
mercury round and its muzzle velocity, and I will tell you whether it could
have caused JFK's movements. It seems to me that "Dr. Truth" should be after
the truth. Here is a quick and easy way for you to get it.
Ken Rahn
"Dr. Truth" <bobka...@attbi.com> wrote in message
news:YxJ1a.60997$Ec4....@rwcrnsc52.ops.asp.att.net...
Chad Zimmerman
some of this videotape so we can all change our minds, or should we
just take your word for it?
Chad
"Dr. Truth" <bobka...@attbi.com> wrote in message news:<YxJ1a.60997$Ec4....@rwcrnsc52.ops.asp.att.net>...
Dr. Truth
Now I know you're a liar.
Gee, a traitor and a criminal all in one.
Stop teaching children lies.
You're a disgrace.
"Kenneth A. Rahn" <kr...@uri.edu> wrote in message
news:b28jg...@enews3.newsguy.com...
Dr. Truth
about our forthcoming worldwide video premiere of JFK MURDER SOLVED: THE
PROOF which will premiere on April 9, 2003.
Here's a brief overview of the 7.5 hours of video that will be made
available to the public:
1. The proof that the Warren Commission was rigged and is a fraud.
2. The confessions and irrefutable evidence on three actual participants in
the murder of JFK.
3. Evidence of the Dallas end of the cover-up...who was involved and
why....
4. The complicity of the CIA in the murder including the names of the
people responsible and a look at how and why their disinfo has worked for 40
years.
5. You'll meet the real killer of Dallas Police Officer J.D. Tippit.
6. The input of 9 retired FBI agents who have worked under the lead of
retired FBI Special agent Zack Shelton to bring the truth to the American
public.
7. A look at the many hoaxes that have been perpetrated by John McAdams and
Marquette University, Judyth Baker, Ken Rahn and others.
8. Interviews with people that are coming forth for the first time to tell
the truth about what they know.
9. Zack Shelton's Prosecutorial Conclusion and Report - this is as strong
as it gets, Folks!
10. Interviews with CIA operatives that are talking for the first time!
11. Lots of previously unreleased phtographs and government documents that
have been withheld from public view for 40 years! We've gots tons of these!
12. Events surrounding the funeral of JFK that are being made public for
the first time!
13. J. Edgar Hoover's part in the cover up and lies told to the American
people!
And much more........
Stay tuned to www.jfkmurdersolved.com for more details......
Dr. Truth
"Chad Zimmerman" <Doc...@cableone.net> wrote in message
news:abf9ca5.03021...@posting.google.com...
AnthonyMarsh
>
> ________________________________________________
> Excellent analogy Ken.. Not to mention that there
> is really no shot at all from the GK.. The only one
> that exists is the one Oliver..(gULp::) Stone used.
> Can we say that name in here? Even that miserable
> shot is one no sniper would pick unless he had a
> death wish.. EXTREMELY VISIBLE to start with..
That is a false argument. There was a person standing in that position.
How come no one reported seeing him? Just as no one reported seeing The
Black Dog Man and we have photographic proof of where he was standing.
We also have the real grassy knoll shooter on one photo and one film.
Not seen by a lot of people.
> Then, that pesky corner wall is back again.. Anyone
> who has lined up that truly rotten "SN" knows that
> your vision of the limo is partially obstructed
> until it pops out from behind the wall.. IF that was
> the shot (Har-har) Son of BM had barely an instant
> to identify, track, aim, & squeeze before the "X"
> No way.. As a bonus roughly 75 people both SEE and
> HEAR you.. (None did.) What does that tell ya?
Badge Man is only an optical illusion. But such a shot was possible and
a person in that position could have tracked and shot the President. You
have made the same mistake that McAdams and others have made. Just
standing behind the fence does not replicate the BM position. They have
him standing on something so that he is 3 feet off the ground. His
muzzle would be about 8 feet above the ground. Such a shot can clear the
wall.
Focus on the HSCA acoustical position, about 10 feet west of the corner
of the fence. From that position a shooter can track and shoot the
President easily.
And many people reported hearing a shot come from that area.
Kenneth A. Rahn
Let me help you straighten this simple thing out. You recall that I
posted book values for .221 rounds and then added 10 grains for good measure
to allow for the mercury round, whose weight I did not have. In response to
your last six duplicate posts, I asked you to provide me with the exact
weight and muzzle velocity. You then said that I had posted them already.
If I was right before, the James Files story is dead in the water. If I
didn't have the right values, you are now refusing to provide them, which
means they don't exist or you aren't after the truth. Please clarify. (I
would really like you to provide me with exact data for that special round
Files claims to have used.)
Ken Rahn
"Dr. Truth" <bobka...@attbi.com> wrote in message
news:t8R1a.63991$vm2.37754@rwcrnsc54...
Dr. Truth
"Wolfman" -one of Files' associate in Chicago - loaded the special casings
at the Bally Warehouse in Chicago - where the mob hid their goodies.
My late partner, Joe West, had Files ask Wolfman to speak with Joe in 1992.
Wolfman agreed to do so. Within two weeks, and before West could question
him, he was dead. Go figure......how's that for REAL physical evidence?
We DO KNOW that Wolfman drilled a small hole in the tip of the shell and
filled it with Mercury. Since ol' Wolf bought the farm, NO ONE, including
you, will ever know the exact amount of mercury Wolf used or how deep the
hole was. Without those numbers your so called "physics" are worthless and
a mere creation of your sad disinfo mind.
Live with it....you're caught, again, fabricating information for your own
evil purposes.
And for what it's worth, the INVENTOR of the FIREBALL and AMMO used in it -
said that the casing WITHOUT being loaded with Mercury would also have done
the same thing to JFK's or any head.
The CHAMPIONSHIP shooters also did not factor in a mercury load, just a
plain old .222 shell.
However, the MERCURY loads used in Blue, Texas also point to the same
reaction as seen in the Z-film.
Any way you go, taking the inventor's word, the shooting champs' word, or
even Files' word, a .222 shell fired from a XP-100 can, might, may and did
do what we saw in the Z-film.
So, take your "physics" and do something useful with it - for instance -
tell me if by Clinton using a cigar on Monica - did it improve the taste of
the tobacco?
Now that's important........I love a good cigar.
Ta ta,
Dr. Truth
P.S. Please let me apologize for calling you a "lying son of a bitch" for I
did not know your mother. I apologize.
What I meant to say is that you're a lying......well, I can't use that term
either......Muther is half of the word.........
"Kenneth A. Rahn" <kr...@uri.edu> wrote in message
news:b28r1...@enews2.newsguy.com...
AnthonyMarsh
OK. That is fine. We can discuss it in terms of momentum only for the
moment. Imagine two different scenarios. In one scenario a bullet hits
only a couple of inches of flesh and goes through with very little loss
of velocity. For example, the studies of JFK's back wound. Ignore the
fact that they did not know that the bullet hit bone. They estimated
that the bullet lost about 179 fps. How much momentum does that deposit?
The other scenario would be a bullet which hits at 2100 fps and stops
within the head, losing ALL of that 2100 fps. Now, how much momentum
does that deposit? Can you see that there is a real difference in
transfer of momentum between those two scenarios?
Have you ever shot different objects and noticed that you can shoot one
object and it does not move, but if you shoot another object it will
move violently?
AnthonyMarsh
More bullshit from bullshit artists. Your evidence is not only
anecdotal, it is idiotic. Don't try this at home because mercury is
highly toxic. But what do you get if you drill a hole in the tip of a
bullet and pore mercury into the hole? A big mess and that's all.
Mercury at room temperature is a liquid. That is why it was used in
thermometers. After you've gone to the trouble of poring the liquid
mercury into the tip of the bullet, what's going to keep it there?
Nothing. Perhaps what your buddy meant is that the tip of the bullet was
filled with FULMINATE of mercury, a solid which is used in primers. That
is the way they USED to make explosive bullets (one of the ways).
I have been talking for a long time about explosive bullets.
AnthonyMarsh
>
> Bob Vernon,
>
> Let me help you straighten this simple thing out. You recall that I
> posted book values for .221 rounds and then added 10 grains for good measure
> to allow for the mercury round, whose weight I did not have. In response to
> your last six duplicate posts, I asked you to provide me with the exact
> weight and muzzle velocity. You then said that I had posted them already.
He has no idea. You would have to make reasonable estimates. If one
indeed wanted to create such a bullet, one might start with a standard
bullet of known weight, then drill out the tip and fill it with mercury.
That won't work as he is suggesting, but go with his concept arguendo.
You can examine the typical bullet and estimate how far down to drill.
Then remember to calculate the difference in weight by specific gravity
between the lead removed and the mercury filled in. That will also
affect the muzzle velocity. It may also affect the drag. One can make
reasonable estimates based on such assumptions.
Now, if it was actually supposed to be fulminate of mercury, then you'd
have to examine similar types of explosive bullets. I can scan in the
Velex chart if that would help.
> If I was right before, the James Files story is dead in the water. If I
> didn't have the right values, you are now refusing to provide them, which
> means they don't exist or you aren't after the truth. Please clarify. (I
> would really like you to provide me with exact data for that special round
> Files claims to have used.)
>
> Ken Rahn
>
> "Dr. Truth" <bobka...@attbi.com> wrote in message
> news:t8R1a.63991$vm2.37754@rwcrnsc54...
> > In your earlier post, you posted the weight qand velocity yourself.
> > Now I know you're a liar.
> > Gee, a traitor and a criminal all in one.
> > Stop teaching children lies.
> > You're a disgrace.
Herbert Blenner
>Message-id: <3E47FCAF...@quik.com>
The momentum transferred from the bullet to the target is the mass of the
bullet times the loss of speed by the bullet. This rule applies to both wounds.
>Have you ever shot different objects and noticed that you can shoot one
>object and it does not move, but if you shoot another object it will
>move violently?
>
Yes and I can equate the speed of recoil to the transfer of momentum divided by
the mass of the object.
Herbert
Dr. Truth
Don't put words in my mouth. If you think for one minute that our team has
believed that Files' "special rounds" - made by his long time pal Wolfman -
had good old chemistry class liquid mercury in them, you need to slap
yourself. In fact, you should just slap yourself anyway.
We've looked at lots of compounds that would work and, as I'm sure you know,
they've even invented new stuff such as C40 for today's busy
sniper-on-the-go.
However, we found evidence that exploding shells have been around for a long
time.....and military people certainly have the knowledge to make them.
All we know is what we've learned:
MERCURY FULMINATE:
==================
Mercury fulminate is an initiating explosive, commonly appearing as white or
gray crystals. It is extremely sensitive to initiation by heat, friction,
spark or flame, and impact. It detonates when initiated by any of these
means. It is pressed into containers, usually at 3000 psi, for use in
detonators and blasting caps. However, when compressed at greater and
greater pressure (up to 30,000 psi), it becomes "dead pressed." In this
condition, it can only be detonated by another initial detonating agent.
Mercury fulminate gradually becomes inert when stored continuously above 100
degrees F. A dark colored product of deterioration gives evidence of this
effect. Mercury fulminate is stored underwater except when there is danger
of freezing. Then it is stored under a mixture of water and alcohol.
Preparation of Mercury Fulminate. Five grams of mercury is added to 55cc. of
nitric acid (specific gravity 1.42) in a 100-cc. Erlenmeyer flask, and the
mixture is allowed to stand without shaking until the mercury has gone into
solution. The acid liquid is then poured into 50 cc. of 90% alcohol in a
500-cc. beaker in the hood. The temperature of the mixture rises, a vigorous
reaction commences, white fumes come off, and cdata bstals of fulminate soon
begin to precipitate. Red fumes appear and the precipitation of the
fulminate becomes more rapid, then white fumes again as the reaction
moderates. After about 20 minutes, the reaction is over; water is added, and
the cdata bstals are washed with water repeatedly by decantation until the
washings are no longer acid to litmus. The product consists of
grayish-yellow cdata bstals, and corresponds to a good grade of commercial
fulminate. It may be obtained white and entirely pure by dissolving in
strong ammonia water, filtering, and reprecipitating by the addition of 30%
acetic acid. The pure fulminate is filtered off, washed several times with
cold water, and stored under water, or, if a very small amount is desired
for experimental purposes, it is dried in a desiccator.
and from Michael Griffith:
There is evidence that a shot struck Kennedy in the front of the skull, in
the area of the right temple. This bullet exited the back of the skull,
creating the large right-rear defect that was seen by dozens of witnesses,
to include doctors, nurses, and federal agents. I discuss some of the
evidence of a frontal shot in my JFK web page article "The Head Shot from
the Front." The autopsy x-rays and photos actually contain evidence of a
frontal shot, though this evidence went unnoticed for many years. Historian
Michael Kurtz points this out in his analysis of the autopsy materials and
the HSCA testimony of wound ballistics expert Dr. Larry Sturdivan:
Sturvidan also stated that Kennedy was not struck in the front of the head
by an exploding bullet fired from the grassy knoll. The reason, Sturdivan
declared, was that the computer-enhanced x-rays of Kennedy's skull do not
depict "a cloud of metallic fragments very near the entrance wound." In
cases where exploding bullets impact, he asserted that "you would definitely
have seen" such a cloud of fragments in the x-ray. Sturdivan's remarks
betrayed both his own ignorance of the medical evidence and the committee's
careful manipulation of that evidence. Sturdivan saw only the
computer-enhanced x-ray of the skull, not the original, unretouched x-rays.
Had he seen the originals, he would have observed a cloud of metallic
fragments clustered in the right front portion of the head. Furthermore, the
close-up photograph of the margins of the large wound in the head shows
numerous small fragments. The Forensic Pathology Panel itself noted the
presence of "missile dust" near the wound in the front of the head. One of
the expert radiologists who examined the x-rays noticed "a linear alignment
of tiny metallic fragments" located in the "posterior aspect of the right
frontal bone." The chief autopsy pathologist, Dr. James J. Humes, remarked
about the numerous metallic fragments like grains of sand scattered near the
front head wound. The medical evidence, then, definitely proves the
existence of a cloud of fragments in the right front portion of Kennedy's
head, convincing evidence, according to Sturdivan, that an exploding bullet
actually did strike the president there. (CRIME OF THE CENTURY, Knoxville:
The University of Tennessee Press, 1982, pp. 177-178)
SPECIAL AMMUNITION FOR HANDGUNS
If an individual wished to produce explosive ammunition for his/her
handgun, he/she could do it, provided that the person had an
impact-sensitive
explosive and a few simple tools. One would first purchase all lead
bullets,
and then make or acquire an impact-detonating explosive. By drilling a hole
in a lead bullet with a drill, a space could be created for the placement of
an explosive. After filling the hole with an explosive, it would be sealed
in
the bullet with a drop of hot wax from a candle. A diagram of a completed
exploding bullet is shown below.
_o_ ------------ drop of wax
/|*|\
| |*|-|----------- impact-sensitive explosive
| |_| |
|_____|
This hollow space design also works for putting poison in bullets.
And for what its worth,
Files said that Wolfman had put a piece of wax over the top to hold the
explosive in........
There are also several other explosives that ol Wolf could have used but
since the word Mercury was involved........
Oh well................
Dr. Truth
"AnthonyMarsh" <ama...@quik.com> wrote in message
news:3E4806B5...@quik.com...
Kenneth A. Rahn
"AnthonyMarsh" <ama...@quik.com> wrote in message
news:3E4809A6...@quik.com...
> "Kenneth A. Rahn" wrote:
> >
> > Bob Vernon,
> >
> > Let me help you straighten this simple thing out. You recall that I
> > posted book values for .221 rounds and then added 10 grains for good
measure
> > to allow for the mercury round, whose weight I did not have. In response
to
> > your last six duplicate posts, I asked you to provide me with the exact
> > weight and muzzle velocity. You then said that I had posted them
already.
>
> He has no idea. You would have to make reasonable estimates. If one
> indeed wanted to create such a bullet, one might start with a standard
> bullet of known weight, then drill out the tip and fill it with mercury.
> That won't work as he is suggesting, but go with his concept arguendo.
> You can examine the typical bullet and estimate how far down to drill.
> Then remember to calculate the difference in weight by specific gravity
> between the lead removed and the mercury filled in. That will also
> affect the muzzle velocity. It may also affect the drag. One can make
> reasonable estimates based on such assumptions.
> Now, if it was actually supposed to be fulminate of mercury, then you'd
> have to examine similar types of explosive bullets. I can scan in the
> Velex chart if that would help.
Thanks for your thoughtful post. I agree that we have to figure out this
one for ourselves. After thinking about it just now, I am pretty sure that I
can continue to use the original weight and muzzle velocity for the .221
round. Here's why. The explosion below the bullet will apply a fixed force
for (nearly) a fixed time. That means that a fixed amount of momentum will
be transferred to the bullet (because force is change of momentum with
time). So if the bullet is lighter, it will wind up moving faster; if it is
heavier, it will move more slowly. Now if I needed kinetic energy for my
calculation, I would be in trouble. But I need only momentum, so I'm fine.
For the record, mercury fulminate (a compound with an OCN group), is
much lighter than lead (density of the fulminate = 4.4; Pb = 11.3). Drilling
the bullet and inserting fulminate will lighten the bullet, but it doesn't
matter to my solution.
Bottom line--the Files story is dead in the water. Somebody made the
whole thing up but failed to consider the physical constraints (among other
things). Bob Vernon has some serious checking to do, for he is peddling an
impossible yarn. I know he is trying to recoup that $600,000 he allegedly
spend, but at some point you have to cut your losses.
Ken Rahn
Herbert Blenner
>Date: 2/10/03 5:49 PM Eastern Standard Time
>Message-id: <b29ah...@enews2.newsguy.com>
Ken, thank for posting this.
I just goes to show thay did not learn anything from the WC errorrs.
Herbert
>Ken Rahn
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Dr. Truth
Face it.
1. The INVENTOR said the XP-100 and the stock .222 casing would indeed to
what was seen in the Z-Film.
2. CHAMPIONSHIP shooters - as in AWARD WINNERS - who fire the XP-100 all
the time agreed that the XP could indeed do what the Z-Film shows.
3. Actual test using mercury loads produced the same results: what the
Z-film shows can be done by the .222.
You can weigh it, you can guess at velocity, you can twist and you can turn
but you can't escape the truth:
What's dead in the water is you.
Ta ta,
Dr. Truth
"Kenneth A. Rahn" <kr...@uri.edu> wrote in message
news:b29ah...@enews2.newsguy.com...
Kenneth A. Rahn
"Dr. Truth" <bobka...@attbi.com> wrote in message
news:kDX1a.62530$tq4.3367@sccrnsc01...
> What someone failed to look at Rahn is the truth.
>
> Face it.
>
> 1. The INVENTOR said the XP-100 and the stock .222 casing would indeed to
> what was seen in the Z-Film.
>
> 2. CHAMPIONSHIP shooters - as in AWARD WINNERS - who fire the XP-100 all
> the time agreed that the XP could indeed do what the Z-Film shows.
>
> 3. Actual test using mercury loads produced the same results: what the
> Z-film shows can be done by the .222.
>
> You can weigh it, you can guess at velocity, you can twist and you can
turn
> but you can't escape the truth:
>
> What's dead in the water is you.
>
> Ta ta,
>
> Dr. Truth
And they would have been right in the qualitative sense that the XP-100
could produce motion in a torso, as the Z film shows motion of a torso. But
I doubt very much that they showed you the quantitative calculations. Maybe
you can tell me whether they ever calculated it out, or even knew the
pattern of JFK's rearward motion in the film. The power of the physics here
is to check quantitative capability, and it is unforgiving. It shows that
Files's story is a fable.
Ken Rahn
AnthonyMarsh
>
> Hey MarshMellow:
>
> Don't put words in my mouth. If you think for one minute that our team has
> believed that Files' "special rounds" - made by his long time pal Wolfman -
> had good old chemistry class liquid mercury in them, you need to slap
> yourself. In fact, you should just slap yourself anyway.
>
That's why I suggested that it might not be liquid mercury, but that is
what it sounded like when you said that he poured in mercury. You do not
pour in fulminate of mercury.
As I suggested it sound more like an explosive bullet.
> We've looked at lots of compounds that would work and, as I'm sure you know,
> they've even invented new stuff such as C40 for today's busy
> sniper-on-the-go.
>
PETN was used by some countries. Lead azide was used in Hinckley's
Devastator bullets.
There are other compounds which can be used, but we will not discuss
them here.
BTW, remember the rumor from the McKinley book Assassination in America
that someone at CIA had asked the Technical Services Division to make an
explosive bullet for the 6.5 mm.
> However, we found evidence that exploding shells have been around for a long
> time.....and military people certainly have the knowledge to make them.
>
Of course. I have done a lot of research on explosive bullets. They used
them in the Civil War. Various countries have routinely made them. At
only a couple of times were the manufactured for the public. I don't
think you can find any legal public source for them now, at least in
this country.
Robert
"Herbert Blenner" <a1e...@aol.com> wrote
> My point is we need to use momentum as a measure of the motion caused by a
> bullet. It is as simple as subtraction. The momentum imparted to the
victim is
> the initial momentum of the bullet minus any momentum of the bullet after
> exit.
Yikes, I don't think it's as simple as all that. There's a gray area
here regarding elasticity and I think conservation of kinetic energy is
going to play a role in a collision, not just momentum.
Robert
> Hey MarshMellow:
>
> Don't put words in my mouth.
He didn't. You've said "mercury" a BUNCH.
> If you think for one minute that our team has
> believed that Files' "special rounds" - made by his long time pal
Wolfman -
> had good old chemistry class liquid mercury in them, you need to slap
> yourself. In fact, you should just slap yourself anyway.
What, it's too much for you to say, "Ooops, of course, I _meant_
"fulminate of mercury"???
Just for fun, what are you going to do NOW, as I point out that the
Fireball was a .221 cartridge? The .222 is the Remington Magnum. Since it's
obviously beneath you to admit to a simple error, the spin you put on this
ought to be amusing at the very least.
Dr. Truth
You're the one with the spin.
I've always called it mercury loads cause that's what snipers and
mercenaries call them.
I only offer the truth.
Gee, another total idiot with a computer....how long did it take you to
learn how to log on to a newsgroup?
Who ya gonna call now you frigging moron?
Gary Mack? BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH
SEE BELOW:
Dr. Truth
.222 Remington
Introduced in 1950, the .222 Remington is one of the most accurate rifle
cartridges in the world. Because of this it became a very popular bench rest
cartridge in the 1950's and 1960's. It is a very well balanced design, based
on a unique rimless case, and its long neck makes it easy to reload. It
looks sort of like a miniature .30-06.
Soon after it appeared the .222 was being chambered by all major rifle
manufacturers, and it became one of the major post-World War II success
stories. After the military acceptance of the .223 Remington (5.56mm NATO)
cartridge in the 1960's and the subsequent appearance of inexpensive
military and "white box" commercial ammunition in that caliber, the .222's
popularity waned. However it is still a popular cartridge, and ammunition is
loaded in Europe and Africa as well as North America. Remington had it in
ninth place in cartridge sales in 2000, although it did not show up in the
Federal or Winchester top 10 lists.
The industry standard operating pressure for the .222 is 46,000 cup. Just
about every company that sells ammunition loads for the .222, including all
of the "Big Three" in the US. Typical factory loads drive a 50 grain spitzer
bullet at a muzzle velocity (MV) of 3,140 fps with 1,094 ft. lbs. of muzzle
energy (ME).
Zero that factory load at 200 yards and the bullet will hit 1.9" high at 100
yards, 1.7" high at 150 yards, 0 at 200 yards, 3.6" low at 250 yards, and
9.7" low at 300 yards. Recoil is minimal, about 3.5 ft. lbs. from the 50
grain factory load in a light 7 pound rifle. The .222 Rem. is a fine varmint
cartridge out to about 225 yards.
The reloader typically uses 50, 52-53, or 55 grain bullets in the .222 Rem.
Lighter or heavier bullets seldom perform as well as middle weight bullets
in this medium size cartridge.
The Sierra Bullets Reloading Manual, Second Edition lists maximum loads at
MV's of 3200-3300 fps with most powders behind their 50 grain bullets (SD
.142). For instance, 20.9 grains of RL7 powder or 26.4 grains of Winchester
748 powder will give a MV of 3200 fps. These loads essentially duplicate the
performance of the standard factory offerings.
With Sierra's 52 grain (SD .148) and 53 grain (SD .151) bullets the maximum
loads typicaly achieve MV's of 3100-3200 fps. 20.9 grains of RL7 or 25.8
grains of W748 powders will give a MV of 3100 fps. The trajectory of these
loads is nearly identical to that of the 50 grain spitzer bullet; apparently
the slightly superior BC the heavier bullet makes up for the slightly lower
velocity.
The Sierra 55 grain bullets (SD .157) can be driven to MV's of 3000-3100
fps. 19.9 grains of RL7 or 24.7 grains of W748 will yeild MV's of 3000 fps.
Sierra technicians used Remington cases and primers with all of the reloads
mentioned, which were chronographed from a 26" test barrel.
The trajectory of the 55 grain spitzer boat tail bullet at 3000 fps is a
follows: +1.71" at 100 yards, 0 at 200 yards, and -8.16" at 300 yards. This
relatively sleek bullet actually shoots flatter than the 50 grain bullet,
and also bucks the wind better. Due to its slightly lower velocity, barrel
life should also be somewhat improved.
According to Sierra figures, for a +/- 2.5" deviation fromn the line of
sight the point blank range of this load is 265 yards for a rifle zeroed at
225 yards. That is wringing maximum performance from a .222 rifle!
.222 Remington Magnum
The .222 Remington Magnum was developed from the .222 and uses what is
basically an elongated .222 case with 20% greater capacity. It can drive a
55 grain bullet at a MV of about 3,240 fps with ME of 1,282 ft. lbs. The
SAAMI mean maximum pressure for the .222 Mag. is 50,000 cup.
The .222 Mag. was actually developed as part of a U.S. military program to
develop a flat trajectory, light recoiling cartridge for use in fully
automatic assault rifles. Remington brought it out as a sort of improved
.222 in 1958, but it never really caught on with civilian shooters, and it
was not adopted by the military.
Its case capacity is actually 5% greater than that of the .223/5.56 NATO,
and because of its longer neck it is a better case for the reloader than the
.223. However, the military ultimately decided to adopt the .223 rather than
the .222 Magnum, and the .222 Mag. has become obsolete. To the best of my
knowledge, no factory made rifles are currently chambered for the .222
Magnum and no factory loaded ammunition is available.
I believe that Remington stopped offering .222 Magnum factory loads sometime
in 1998. The last Remington factory load for the .222 Magnum drove a 55
grain bullet at a MV of 3,240 fps. Muzzle energy was 1,282 ft. lbs. A scope
sighted .222 Magnum rifle shooting the Remington 55 grain spitzer bullet and
zeroed at 200 yards hit 1.6" high at 100 yards, 1.5" high at 150 yards, 0 at
200 yards, and 3.1" low at 250 yards. That made the .222 Magnum about a 230
yard varmint cartridge.
Today the cartridge is strictly a proposition for reloaders. According to
the Sierra Reloading Manual their 55 grain spitzer bullets can be driven to
a MV of 3200 fps with 21.9 grains of IMR 4198, 24.4 grains of IMR 3031, or
26.1 grains of IMR 4895 powders. All loads used Remington brass and primers.
This essentially duplicates the discontinued Remington factory load. 60-63
grain bullets can be driven to MV's of 3000 fps with most powders, but the
trajectory of the Sierra 55 grain spitzer boat tail bullet is slightly
flatter. The trajectory of the 55 grain spitzer BT at a MV of 3200 fps can
be optimized by zeroing the rifle at 240 yards. Then the point blank range
(+/- 2.5" from the line of sight) becomes 280 yards.
"Robert" <rdb...@prtcnet.org> wrote in message
news:b29mct$85p$1...@nd.eastky.net...
Dr. Truth
I'm not really certain what that is but you may know.....
Please enlighten us.
Dr. Truth
"AnthonyMarsh" <ama...@quik.com> wrote in message
news:3E488F3D...@quik.com...
Dr. Truth
something won't work and calculating figure after figure, twisting facts
into mathematical error and analysis, pulling out dictionaries to use the
right big words and trying to change the simple fact the JFK got his brains
blown out by a shot from the grassy knoll.
Arlen Specter would have loved you Rahn. You and him could go down in
history as both of you deceiving the American public.
The only fable here is you.
By the way, I still haven't seen your notarized FOIA release of information
so I can request all the FBI and CIA files on you. You did mail it didn't
you?
Or do you have something to hide?
Dr. Truth
P.S. Oh, and I'm deepely sorry (BWAHAHAHAHAHAH) that your "physical
evidence" has been blown apart by the truth. Does that mean that your next
Institute donation from the CIA will be less than normal? Or did they renew
the agreement at all?
"Kenneth A. Rahn" <kr...@uri.edu> wrote in message
news:b29ob...@enews1.newsguy.com...
Robert
> Spin? BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH
> You're the one with the spin.
> I've always called it mercury loads cause that's what snipers and
> mercenaries call them.
> I only offer the truth.
> Gee, another total idiot with a computer....how long did it take you to
> learn how to log on to a newsgroup?
> Who ya gonna call now you frigging moron?
> Gary Mack? BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH
> SEE BELOW:
Yes, a bunch of cut 'n' paste about the .222, which ain't the
Fireball cartridge, you moron. Talk about idiots with computers.
Dr. Truth
Anyone that knows firearms will tell you that a .221 Fireball XP-100 fires
either a .221 cartridge or - with a slight modification that any gunsmith
can do - the weapon can hold a .222 cartridge.
Instead of spending so much time on your computer, you should get a haircut
and a job.
Some companies still hire morons. Have you tried McDonald's?
Ta ta,
Dr. Truth
"Robert" <rdb...@prtcnet.org> wrote in message
news:b2b27u$agt$1...@nd.eastky.net...
Herbert Blenner
>Date: 2/10/03 9:00 PM Eastern Standard Time
>Message-id: <b29lf9$849$1...@nd.eastky.net>
Kinetic energy is not conserved in a collision. If it were then perpetual
motion machines would be possible.
Herbert
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Kenneth A. Rahn
You have acknowledged that the round allegedly used by Files was a
Fireball .221, but modified by drilling out lead and adding mercury
fulminate. This would decrease its weight somewhat. I have shown that the
lighter bullet would pick up the same momentum during firing, which would
make it yield the same rearward motion of the body in my calculations. With
that in mind, I have recalculated the maximum rearward lurches that could
have been produced by the XP-100 (by using its muzzle velocity instead of
its lower velocity at impact. I used the original Fireball .221, the .222
Remington, the Sierra 55, and the .222 Remington Magnum (granting the
possibility that these latter three could have actually been fired by the
XP-100. The results for exit velocities range from 0.17 to 0.28 fps
rearward, which is well below the observed initial lurch of 0.8 fps and far
below the full lurch of 2.8 fps. This confirms my original calculations. It
also shows that it could not have happened in the way you and Files are
claiming. Somebody has made this whole thing up. I trust that since you are
interested in the truth, you will look into this matter and find out who is
responsible. I also note that you have not told me whether any of those
marksmen who tried the XP-100 and allegedly told you it could have accounted
for the motions in the Z-film actually did the calculations, or were
speaking generally and semiquantitatively.
By the way, I know that you want to recoup your $600,000, but don't you
think that the truth of this most important event supersedes that,
especially for "Dr. Truth"?
Ken Rahn
Dr. Truth
Once again, you lie. Take your physics go back to school.
People who load the shells are even more specific:
A 222 Remington cartridge propels a 22 caliber bullet at fairly high
velocities. There are a lot of other cartridges that produce similar
velocities, with some even higher. It is not the shell or the case that
produces that damage, but the bullet design.
There are 22 caliber bullets that are built strong enough, with a thicker
copper jacket, to get deeper penetration on medium sized game such as deer.
There are also thinner jacketed 22 caliber bullet that are designed for
small game and varmints. While these thinner jacketed bullets work well on
small game, to use them on larger game would simply destroy much of the
edible meat.
The thinner jacketed bullets are designed with just enough copper jacket to
keep the bullet together while it travels at the high velocities, and
controls the expansion when striking a small game animal or varmint.
Of course this happened in 1963, and the selection of loaded ammunition and
reloading components at that time was limited. Only in the last 10-15 years
has the selection, and manufacture of factory ammunition and reloading
components broadened.
A good comparison of this would be to shoot the same caliber, but with
various bullets that were designed for various tasks at something like a
watermelon or pumpkin. While the bench rest/match grade bullet, having the
heaviest copper jacket would do the least damage, the medium copper jacket
for deer size game would do a little more damage, and the light copper
jacket construction of the varmint/small game bullets would do the most
damage. There are a lot of variables to consider when selecting the proper
bullet. While hunters try to have a cartridge combination to produce a
humane kill and do the least damage to their prey, the same isn't always
true for someone using a firearm for such a heinous crime.
So in short, yes a single shot to JFK's head with the correct bullet
construction and velocity could have produced such damage.
Regards,
Greg
The Reload Bench
http://www.reloadbench.com
Reload Bulletin Board
http://www.reloadbench.com/cgi-bin/ubbcgi/Ultimate.cgi
Keep em' in the 10 ring
----- Original Message -----
From: <sa...@emirates.net.ae>
To: "Bob Vernon" <bobka...@attbi.com>
Sent: Tuesday, February 11, 2003 9:06 AM
Subject: Re: Question about .222 Remington shell
> Bob,
>
> A 22 caliber bullet fired from a 222 Remington would certainly have blown
> up his head.
>
> By the way, the "shell" is the case of the cartridge, the bullet is the
part
> that does the damage.
>
> Best regards
>
> Saeed
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Bob Vernon <bobka...@attbi.com>
> Date: Tuesday, February 11, 2003 8:16 am
> Subject: Question about .222 Remington shell
>
> > Could a plain .222 Remington shell have done the damage to JFK's
> > head as we see it in the infamous Zapruder film?
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > Bob
Actually Rahn, why don't we do a test? Sit down in a limo, have the driver
go 11 mph, and let's see if a .222 Remington in an XP-100 will blow your
brains out. I'll bet on the weapon.
Dr. Truth
"Kenneth A. Rahn" <kr...@uri.edu> wrote in message
news:b2b90...@enews3.newsguy.com...
Robert
"Herbert Blenner" <a1e...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20030211111601...@mb-cq.aol.com...
Poor choice of wording on my part (I've been subjected to too many
pure textbook examples of things lately.) Anyway, I'm curious as to why
you're ignoring kinetic energy here.
Robert
> You still are the moron.
The moron level is becoming crystal clear...
> Anyone that knows firearms will tell you that a .221 Fireball XP-100 fires
> either a .221 cartridge or - with a slight modification that any gunsmith
> can do - the weapon can hold a .222 cartridge.
Fireball isn't the name of the _gun_, you doofus, it's the name of
the .221 cartridge. If your man is using an XP-100 rechambered for some
flavor of .222, the term "Fireball" no longer applies.
> Instead of spending so much time on your computer, you should get a
haircut
> and a job.
> Some companies still hire morons. Have you tried McDonald's?
Sounds like a good place for you, actually, although I expect you'd
have problems with the terminology there, too.
AnthonyMarsh
All of that is true, but is there any way that you can take into account
an explosive bullet? When Velex was producing them they found that the
energy deposited was about double the standard bullet.
Herbert Blenner
>Message-id: <b2bbq7$aq1$1...@nd.eastky.net>
The only statement we can make about kinetic energy is that it decreases as a
result of the collision.
Herbert
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Dr. Truth
We did.
Or are you too busy pushing a slide rule?
"AnthonyMarsh" <ama...@quik.com> wrote in message
news:3E494117...@quik.com...
Dr. Truth
>
> "Dr. Truth" <bobka...@attbi.com> wrote in message
> news:8792a.66585$SD6.3110@sccrnsc03...
>
> > You still are the moron.
>
> The moron level is becoming crystal clear...
Sure is.
Glad to see you found a mirror.
>
> > Anyone that knows firearms will tell you that a .221 Fireball XP-100
fires
> > either a .221 cartridge or - with a slight modification that any
gunsmith
> > can do - the weapon can hold a .222 cartridge.
>
> Fireball isn't the name of the _gun_, you doofus, it's the name of
> the .221 cartridge. If your man is using an XP-100 rechambered for some
> flavor of .222, the term "Fireball" no longer applies.
Gee, that's strange...the official Remington poster from 1963 calls it a
Remington Fireball XP-100. Just the chamber of the Remington Fireball
XP-100 was modified however the name of the gun stayed the same: Remington
Fireball XP-100. Golly......you really are a moron...!
>
> > Instead of spending so much time on your computer, you should get a
> haircut
> > and a job.
> > Some companies still hire morons. Have you tried McDonald's?
>
> Sounds like a good place for you, actually, although I expect
you'd
> have problems with the terminology there, too.
Not at all. I like morons. Hell, I'm talking to you.
Then again, I understand that you would probably be hired faster at K-Mart.
But don't take any stock options in the deal.
Kenneth A. Rahn
"AnthonyMarsh" <ama...@quik.com> wrote in message
news:3E494117...@quik.com...
I was about to type out a quick answer, and then realized I was wrong. Let
me think about it.
Ken
Kenneth A. Rahn
Now we are getting somewhere. It often helps to get specifics.
I was asking one question and you were answering another. I was asking
about backward motions of Kennedy's body, and you were giving answers about
bullets exploding his head. They are not the same. I have no quarrel with
the XP-100's being able to explode JFK's head, and grant you that, at least
in principle. But we know that the bullet that exploded his head came from
the rear. I also know (and will be posting soon) that there is no physical
way for a bullet from the front to account for all the motions observed
after the head shot. I am trying to screen bullets by their ability to push
the body backward, as in a second hit right after the first. That is where
the XP-100 fails by a wide margin, as do nearly all other bullets that I can
find. So without hard information to the contrary, Files's Fable remains
just that.
Ken Rahn
Dr. Truth
The only fable here is you.
"Kenneth A. Rahn" <kr...@uri.edu> wrote in message
news:b2bsf...@enews2.newsguy.com...
Dr. Truth
"Kenneth A. Rahn" <kr...@uri.edu> wrote in message
news:b2brf...@enews2.newsguy.com...
Kenneth A. Rahn
"Dr. Truth" <bobka...@attbi.com> wrote in message
news:k3f2a.70279$iG3.8771@sccrnsc02...
> You're beginning to talk gibberish.
> The only fable here is you.
Maybe you should check out a physics book from your local library and read
it, especially the section on mechanics. Then you will see why James Files's
story cannot be true. Next you can track down the person who made it up.
Next time you respond, try doing it to the points I was making.
Ken Rahn
Dr. Truth
program so you can learn the truth about what happened in Dallas in 1963.
Your tired old "physical evidence" that has been regurgitated time and time
again by some of the most astute people in the world, professional
investigators and, yes, Americans with a brain, is without merit, absurd and
a disgrace to anyone that desires the truth.
You've seen loaders and shooters tell you, point blank, that the XP-100 can
do the damage you see in the Z-Film yet you hide behind smoked numbers that
can be manipulated like Michael Jackson does with small boys.
You've seen results of tests done by military snipers and retired CIA
mercenaries who have proven that the .222 loaded bullets will indeed do what
you see in the Z-Film, yet you still rant, rave, deny, twist, instigate,
fabricate, attempt to impress people with the initials you put behind your
name and, worst of all, and the biggest disgrace, is that you teach children
a lie.
Hang it up. You lost long ago. This is America asshole and you apparently
haven't cared in a long time.
"Kenneth A. Rahn" <kr...@uri.edu> wrote in message
news:b2c7o...@enews2.newsguy.com...
Kenneth A. Rahn
If I were you, I would stop this stuff now, for your posts to me are
increasingly revealing things about you that you shouldn't want people to
know if you expect to get them to watch that program. Bluff, bluster, and
accusations will never substitute for evidence.
You continue to answer questions that I didn't ask, like politicians who
avoid answering uncomfortable questions directly. I have agreed in principle
that the XP-100 can explode JFK's head, so let's not pretend that your
"answers" about that are getting us anywhere. I am asking whether your
experts told you that the XP-100 could hurl JFK backward with the observed
velocity, and if they did, whether it was an offhand opinion or a real
calculation. I'm betting that they limited their responses to the explosion.
If you can produce any quotes on the speed of the lurch, I would love to see
them. So far, you have shown me only bluff and bluster. James Files is still
dead in the water.
Ken Rahn
"Dr. Truth" <bobka...@attbi.com> wrote in message
news:Gei2a.72939$tq4.3483@sccrnsc01...
Dr. Truth
Live with it.
"Kenneth A. Rahn" <kr...@uri.edu> wrote in message
news:b2cc5...@enews2.newsguy.com...
Kenneth A. Rahn
Your nonresponse speaks volumes. I will have more to say on James
Files's yarn soon.
Ken Rahn
"Dr. Truth" <bobka...@attbi.com> wrote in message
news:AAo2a.84962$Ec4....@rwcrnsc52.ops.asp.att.net...
Ted Gittinger
> You still are the moron.
> Anyone that knows firearms will tell you that a .221 Fireball XP-100 fires
> either a .221 cartridge or - with a slight modification that any gunsmith
> can do - the weapon can hold a .222 cartridge.
In other words, the Fireball is sold as a .221, and requires modification to
shoot a .222.
I'd say he just nailed your ass to the wall. Hein?
ted
Robert
> I've never said anything about it being a .221 round. It was a .222
round.
> Once again, you lie. Take your physics go back to school.
> People who load the shells are even more specific:
Quote on - Dr. "Truth" spake:
"Unfortunately for Kenneth Rahn, he has never talked to the inventor of the
Fireball and the ammo it uses/used. We did. Have him on tape. Not only
are Rahn's "physics" flawed, so is his disinfo. The inventor of the weapon
says that the bullet and the Fireball would MOST CERTAINLY cause a response
like you see in the Z film."
Robert
>
> "Robert" <rdb...@prtcnet.org> wrote in message
> news:b2bc7f$aq4$1...@nd.eastky.net...
> >
> > "Dr. Truth" <bobka...@attbi.com> wrote in message
> > news:8792a.66585$SD6.3110@sccrnsc03...
> >
> > > You still are the moron.
> >
> > The moron level is becoming crystal clear...
>
> Sure is.
> Glad to see you found a mirror
>
> >
> fires
> > > either a .221 cartridge or - with a slight modification that any
> gunsmith
> > > can do - the weapon can hold a .222 cartridge.
> >
> > Fireball isn't the name of the _gun_, you doofus, it's the name
of
> > the .221 cartridge. If your man is using an XP-100 rechambered for some
> > flavor of .222, the term "Fireball" no longer applies.
>
>
> Gee, that's strange...the official Remington poster from 1963 calls it a
> Remington Fireball XP-100. Just the chamber of the Remington Fireball
> XP-100 was modified however the name of the gun stayed the same: Remington
> Fireball XP-100. Golly......you really are a moron...!
That's an advertisement telling you what caliber the gun is in,
moron. Here, take a look at Remington's own web page:
http://www.remington.com/aboutus/gunhistory.htm
Center column, down at the bottom, under Long Range Pistol, two
models listed: XP-100 and XP-100R. NOT "Fireball XP-100".
I think the spin you're going to put on Remington's own web page is
going be something to behold.
> >
> > > Instead of spending so much time on your computer, you should get a
> > haircut
> > > and a job.
> > > Some companies still hire morons. Have you tried McDonald's?
> >
> > Sounds like a good place for you, actually, although I expect
> you'd
> > have problems with the terminology there, too.
>
> Not at all. I like morons. Hell, I'm talking to you.
> Then again, I understand that you would probably be hired faster at
K-Mart.
> But don't take any stock options in the deal.
Spin this, smart-ass:
http://www.remington.com/aboutus/gunhistory.htm
Robert
"Ted Gittinger" <TGITT...@austin.rr.com> wrote in message
news:kTu2a.6018$in1.3...@twister.austin.rr.com...
>
> "Dr. Truth" <bobka...@attbi.com> wrote in message
> news:8792a.66585$SD6.3110@sccrnsc03...
> > You still are the moron.
> > Anyone that knows firearms will tell you that a .221 Fireball XP-100
fires
> > either a .221 cartridge or - with a slight modification that any
gunsmith
> > can do - the weapon can hold a .222 cartridge.
>
> In other words, the Fireball is sold as a .221, and requires modification
to
> shoot a .222.
>
> I'd say he just nailed your ass to the wall. Hein?
You too, Ted? So, if I take a .45 cal. Model 1911 and drop-in, say,
the parts to make it a .40, is it still a .45? No. It's still a Model 1911,
just like the XP-100 is still an XP-100, whether as originally chambered for
the Fireball _CARTRIDGE_ or some other cartridge. Once it's rechambered,
it's no longer a "Fireball" anymore than a kitted .45 is still a .45, or a
Mauser converted to .30-06 is still an 8mm (or whatever it was originally).
Remington themselves only refer to this gun as the XP-100:
Dr. Truth
The original POSTER on the XP-100 - issued in 1963 - BEFORE WEB PAGES -
calls the weapon a Remington XP-100 Fireball.
Ta ta
"Robert" <rdb...@prtcnet.org> wrote in message
news:b2bjs7$b0f$1...@nd.eastky.net...
Ted Gittinger
many
> >pure textbook examples of things lately.) Anyway, I'm curious as to why
> >you're ignoring kinetic energy here.
> >
>
> The only statement we can make about kinetic energy is that it decreases
as a
> result of the collision.
>
> Herbert
It is to larf. Kinetic energy does not simply "decrease." Perhaps you
would like to salvage your reputation by explaining that statement.
Or it may not be worth the effort.
ted
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
Ted Gittinger
Why, you can rechamber any firearm into any other firearm, within reason.
Thus, you could create an XP-100 chambered for a .458 Magnum.
I would not recommend shooting one, however.. Still, what would call it? A
.458 Magnum Fireball?
Make sense.
ted
Ted Gittinger
> Gee that's funny....even the press and the leading gun experts call the
> pistol the REMINGTON FIREBALL
Sigh. Which has precisely what to do with the assassination of JFK?
Something? Nothing?
ted
Herbert Blenner
>From: "Kenneth A. Rahn" kr...@uri.edu
>Date: 2/9/03 6:39 PM Eastern Standard Time
>Message-id: <b26ka...@enews2.newsguy.com>
>
>To All,
>
> I suppose you can't really say good-bye to someone you never said
>hello to, but I will give James Files the benefit of the doubt on this
>point. Now that Bob Vernon is actively pushing his new TV "special," I
>thought it would be appropriate to remind everyone that Files's story, if
>indeed it is really his, violates several major physical constraints of
>the JFK assassination. I have had a web page on this subject for the last
>couple of years, and Bob Vernon has taken major exception to it, to put it
>mildly (but in the form of hurling epithets rather than refuting
>evidence).
> Perhaps the biggest physical constraint is that the XP-100 Fireball
>doesn't have the oomph to create Kennedy's motions. It doesn't even come
>close. This is very easy to demonstrate. You just look up the mass of the
>bullet and its speed, factor in a couple of angles, and see how fast the
>body can be pushed backward from the momentum. It is a much simpler
>calculation than any that involve the explosion of the head. I have
>recently redone this calculation, along with the same thing for a couple
>hundred other bullets. Book values for a .221 round with the XP-100 are 50
>grains and 2650 fps muzzle velocity. Files said that he used a .222 round
>that would hit at 3100 fps, so I decided to grant him that and up the mass
>to 60 grains, just to give him the benefit of the doubt. I used a downward
>angle of 9 degrees and a horizontal angle of 118 degrees relative to the
>plane of the Zapruder film (corresponding to the corner of the stockade
>fence). I also let the bullet be totally absorbed by the body, because
>Files said that his special mercury-loaded round would "fragmentate." With
>an upper body of 85 pounds, the rearward velocity came out to about 0.3
>fps. That value is well below the observed initial lurch of 0.8 fps
>rearward and much farther below the final lurch of 2.8 fps. In other
>words, Files's weapon and ammunition failed by factors of 3 to 9 to do the
>job he claimed for it.
> So when you read the continuing publicity about the coming "special,"
>keep in mind that James Files could not have done what he claimed to.
>Files and Vernon should not have forgotten about physics!
Ken,
Neither the Fireball nor the MC moved the upper body in a straight line.
Instead the momentum from the bullet caused the upper body to rotate about body
joints.
Although this distinction may seem unimportant, it reduces momentum transfer
from the bullet by a significant fraction. A calculation which neglects gravity
shows a bullet needs to transfer between one-half and one-third the momentum
required for a straight line motion.
When I consider gravity my results are essentially unchanged. Only a slight
acceleration occurs before the deceleration of the backward movement.
Herbert
> Incidentally, I did find several types of ammunition that could create
>the initial lurch of 0.8 fps rearward. The are mostly in the Magnum or
>Magnum Super category. Files should have said that he fired a different
>kind of weapon!
>
>Ken Rahn
>9 February 2002
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Herbert Blenner
>Date: 2/13/03 4:38 PM Eastern Standard Time
>Message-id: <CfU2a.11982$VI.8...@twister.austin.rr.com>
>
>
>"Herbert Blenner" <a1e...@aol.com> wrote in message
>> >
>> > Poor choice of wording on my part (I've been subjected to too
>many
>> >pure textbook examples of things lately.) Anyway, I'm curious as to why
>> >you're ignoring kinetic energy here.
>> >
>>
>> The only statement we can make about kinetic energy is that it decreases
>as a
>> result of the collision.
>>
>> Herbert
>
>It is to larf. Kinetic energy does not simply "decrease." Perhaps you
>would like to salvage your reputation by explaining that statement.
You are not worth the effort, Ted. However some readers maybe interested.
Collisions must decrease the kinetic energy otherwise perpetual motion would be
possible.
Herbert
Kenneth A. Rahn
Bob Vernon is answering questions that weren't asked because he has to
hide the fact that he has no answers for the ones that were.
Ken Rahn
"Ted Gittinger" <TGITT...@austin.rr.com> wrote in message
news:XpU2a.12017$VI.9...@twister.austin.rr.com...
Kenneth A. Rahn
I'm sorry, but I don't understand. You seem to be saying first that
gravity matters, then that it doesn't. Please elaborate. It seems to me that
the rapid accelerations within a frame or so will not be materially affected
by gravity. Also, I have done all calculations in both rotational and
translational coordinates. The results are more similar than different. I
prefer the rotational calculations in principle because both the head and
the body rotated, not translated, but I sometimes drop back to the
translational for simplicity.
Ken Rahn
"Herbert Blenner" <a1e...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20030213210444...@mb-mn.aol.com...
Kenneth A. Rahn
I've thought about your question more, and think I have resolved it. An
exploding bullet injects considerably more energy into the system, but no
net momentum. My first thought was that this would leave the final motion of
the body unchanged, but would be true only if the resulting fragments
carried away momentum equally in all directions. If the fragments flew out
in a preferential direction, the body would have to recoil in the opposite
direction, just like with the exploding head that is the subject of all my
calculations.
Here you can respond in one of two ways. If you plead ignorance abut the
cloud caused by the explosion, as would seem logical, you don't know enough
to proceed. But the picture becomes tractable when you realize that the
Zapruder record shows what happened, whether the head exploded from a normal
bullet or from an exploding one. The effects of any exploding bullet are
built into the cloud and large fragments that we see in the film and can
understand with physics. It's more a question of naming the cause (exploding
bullet or regular bullet) than of dealing with it. Whew!
Thanks for raising this interesting question.
Ken Rahn
"AnthonyMarsh" <ama...@quik.com> wrote in message
news:3E494117...@quik.com...
Dr. Truth
Outta questions?
"Kenneth A. Rahn" <kr...@uri.edu> wrote in message
news:b2hjp...@enews4.newsguy.com...
AnthonyMarsh
>
> Tony,
>
> I've thought about your question more, and think I have resolved it. An
> exploding bullet injects considerably more energy into the system, but no
> net momentum. My first thought was that this would leave the final motion of
> the body unchanged, but would be true only if the resulting fragments
> carried away momentum equally in all directions. If the fragments flew out
> in a preferential direction, the body would have to recoil in the opposite
> direction, just like with the exploding head that is the subject of all my
> calculations.
The resulting fragments do not carry away momentum equally in all
directions. There is indeed preferential direction. Let me give you a
couple of known examples of explosive bullet. James Brady was hit in the
head with an explosive .22. The explosive is only in the tip. When the
bullet hit his skill the tip exploded. Only about 4 or 5 tiny fragments
went into his brain and there was no exit. The base of the bullet was
blown back in the opposite direction and did not enter the head. One of
his shots was a wild miss and hit a window in the building across the
street. It blew a hole in the window and tiny fragments were found just
inside the window. The base of the bullet was found outside the building
on the ground.
Velex demonstrated its explosive bullets by firing a normal round and
then the explosive round at a can of water (don't know the size or
weight offhand). The normal bullet would go right through the can hardly
moving it and leaving a small entrance wound and slightly bigger exit
wound. When they shot it with an explosive bullet, the water shot up to
the ceiling, the can moved backwards away from the weapon violently and
the back of the can was shredded. As I said I can scan in the Velex info
if you want to take a look. I know of no other public source for
information about the characteristics of the explosive bullets.
Kenneth A. Rahn
Very interesting post. I would indeed like to see the information from
Velex. Thanks for helping. If this discussion goes far enough, I can put it
on my web site, either separately or as part of the new monograph.
The larger point remains, however, namely that the Z-film captured the
effects of whatever bullet struck, and so the extra energy and momentum of
an exploding bullet would have been seen in the observed cloud and large
fragments. It would therefore be already included in my physical analysis.
We must also not forget that no physical artifacts were found that point to
that kind of weapon, bullet, or direction.
Ken Rahn
"AnthonyMarsh" <ama...@quik.com> wrote in message
news:3E4C7053...@quik.com...
> The resulting fragments do not carry away momentum equally in all
> directions. There is indeed preferential direction. Let me give you a
> couple of known examples of explosive bullet. James Brady was hit in the
> head with an explosive .22. The explosive is only in the tip. When the
> bullet hit his skill the tip exploded. Only about 4 or 5 tiny fragments
> went into his brain and there was no exit. The base of the bullet was
> blown back in the opposite direction and did not enter the head. One of
> his shots was a wild miss and hit a window in the building across the
> street. It blew a hole in the window and tiny fragments were found just
> inside the window. The base of the bullet was found outside the building
> on the ground.
> Velex demonstrated its explosive bullets by firing a normal round and
> then the explosive round at a can of water (don't know the size or
> weight offhand). The normal bullet would go right through the can hardly
> moving it and leaving a small entrance wound and slightly bigger exit
> wound. When they shot it with an explosive bullet, the water shot up to
> the ceiling, the can moved backwards away from the weapon violently and
> the back of the can was shredded. As I said I can scan in the Velex info
> if you want to take a look. I know of no other public source for
> information about the characteristics of the explosive bullets.
>
Kenneth A. Rahn
"Dr. Truth" <bobka...@attbi.com> wrote in message
news:TTZ2a.91606$2H6.1847@sccrnsc04...
> Answered eveything you've asked.
> Outta questions?
Sorry, but simply stating it does not make it so. I asked you specifically
whether your gun guys were commenting on the general level of damage done by
a Fireball round, which I have agreed to in principle, or the speed of a
rearward lurch that it could cause. You did not address this question.
Ken Rahn
Dr. Truth
JFK got his fkn brains blown out by a shot from the right front from the
grassy knoll by a mercury loaded bullet fired from a Remington Fireball
XP-100 - chambered for a .222 shell - by a person named James Files and the
evidence gathered by the HSCA, ARRB, and 11 retired FBI agents conclusively
solves the case and makes frauds like you obsolete.
Hopefully, my answer is clear.
"Kenneth A. Rahn" <kr...@uri.edu> wrote in message
news:b2j2l...@enews2.newsguy.com...
Dr. Truth
Hang it up.
The party's over.
Find something else to lie to your students about.
"Kenneth A. Rahn" <kr...@uri.edu> wrote in message
news:b2j2g...@enews2.newsguy.com...
Kenneth A. Rahn
You keep answering a different question from what I asked, or maybe
one-half of the question. But I guess since you have done that two or three
times in a row, your silence on the second part means that your gun guys
didn't address it. That is as I had suspected. That makes your repeated
"answer" meaningless, since I have agreed several times with you already
that a Fireball round can in principle explode a head, but that it cannot
provide a large-enough lurch. The Files Fable continues. It's all made up,
and you won't deal with it.
If you want to establish some credibility here, you really should start
addressing actual questions rather than trying to bluster your way around
them.
Ken Rahn
"Dr. Truth" <bobka...@attbi.com> wrote in message
news:dK83a.99462$iG3.13485@sccrnsc02...
Dr. Truth
Even a moron like you will be able to understand it.
The only fraud here is you.
"Kenneth A. Rahn" <kr...@uri.edu> wrote in message
news:b2jb3...@enews1.newsguy.com...
Kenneth A. Rahn
Still no answer to the critical question, I see. It's obvious that you
have none. I'm finished replying to you in this thread, for you have told me
all I need to know.
Ken Rahn
"Dr. Truth" <bobka...@attbi.com> wrote in message
news:%jb3a.113561$Ec4....@rwcrnsc52.ops.asp.att.net...
Dr. Truth
You've told me all I need to know, too.
You're a liar and a fraud.
Bye,
Dr, Truth
"Kenneth A. Rahn" <kr...@uri.edu> wrote in message
news:b2jk7...@enews4.newsguy.com...
Ted Gittinger
> >Subject: Re: Good-bye, James Files
> >From: "Ted Gittinger" TGITT...@austin.rr.com
> >Date: 2/13/03 4:38 PM Eastern Standard Time
> >Message-id: <CfU2a.11982$VI.8...@twister.austin.rr.com>
> >
> >
> >"Herbert Blenner" <a1e...@aol.com> wrote in message
> >> >
> >> > Poor choice of wording on my part (I've been subjected to too
> >many
> >> >pure textbook examples of things lately.) Anyway, I'm curious as to
why
> >> >you're ignoring kinetic energy here.
> >> >
> >>
> >> The only statement we can make about kinetic energy is that it
decreases
> >as a
> >> result of the collision.
> >>
> >> Herbert
> >
> >It is to larf. Kinetic energy does not simply "decrease." Perhaps you
> >would like to salvage your reputation by explaining that statement.
>
> You are not worth the effort, Ted. However some readers maybe interested.
>
> Collisions must decrease the kinetic energy otherwise perpetual motion
would be
> possible.
>
> Herbert
Sorry, chum. Matter and energy are neither created nor destroyed, although
they may be converted one into the other. "Member?
Kinetic energy may be imparted to another object. But the total energy in
the equation remains the same.
Unless Einstein was wrong.
ted
Herbert Blenner
>Message-id: <iIh3a.11113$Lh5.3...@twister.austin.rr.com>
You do not need the physics of Einstein to analyze collisions at classical
velocities. As for the classical physics, you have confused the total with the
kinetic energy.
Collisions produce heat. This thermal energy appears at the expense of the
original kinetic energy. Collisions nearly conserve kinetic and thermal
energies because other forms of energy are involved.
I suggest you do a web search on the "mechanical equivalent of heat."
Herbert
Ted Gittinger
in
> >the equation remains the same.
> >
> velocities. As for the classical physics, you have confused the total with
the
> kinetic energy.
No, you consummate idiot, I have not. The total energy remains the *total
energy,* whether it is kinetic, heat, or any other form of the stuff.
Capiche?
ted
Herbert Blenner
>Message-id: <lWw3a.14112$Lh5.5...@twister.austin.rr.com>
What happened to your claim challenge, Ted?
You wrote:
"It is to larf. Kinetic energy does not simply "decrease." Perhaps you
would like to salvage your reputation by explaining that statement."
Now here is a little example for you. A bullet of mass m moving at a speed of v
collides with and is stopped by a larger mass, M, at rest. By conservation of
momentum the larger mass recoils with a speed of mv/M.
Before the collision, the initial kinetic energy, Ti = ½ m v^2. Following the
collision the final kinetic energy, Tj = ½ M (m/M)v^2 = ½ (m^2)/M v^2. From
this we calculate the ratio of final to initial kinetic energy and find Tj/Ti =
m/M.
Let us do some arithmetic. The kinetic energy of a 0.025 pound bullet moving at
1,800 ft/sec is Ti =1/2 (0.025/32)(1800)^2 = 1265.625 foot pound.
Now suppose the bullet imparted its entire kinetic energy to the 90-pound upper
torso of the victim. In this imaged situation, we have 1265.625 = ½ (90/32) u
^2, where u is their speed of recoil. Solving this equation gives u = 30
ft/sec.
That's right, Ted. That tiny little bullet had enough kinetic energy to impart
a substantial speed to the victim. So much for conservation of kinetic energy.
Returning to the real world, conservation of momentum shows the 90 pound upper
torso recoils with a speed of (0.025) (1800)/90 = 0.5 ft/sec.
Are you ready for a flash quiz, Ted?
The Zapruder film shows people being shot by a 0.025 pound bullet which moved
at around 1,800 ft/sec. Judging by the speed of the involuntary recoil of the
victims which mechanical quality was conserved?
a) Kinetic energy
b) Momentum
>Capiche?
Your answer will tell.
Herbert
>ted
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
AnthonyMarsh
True, but part of the kinetic energy can be converted into other forms
of energy, such as potential and heat. The heat energy is generally
lost. Entropy.
> Unless Einstein was wrong.
>
Einstein himself thought that he had been wrong about some things.
> ted
> >
> > >Or it may not be worth the effort.
> > >
> > >ted
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >>
> > >>
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
--
Robert
"Ted Gittinger" <TGITT...@austin.rr.com> wrote
> I would not recommend shooting one, however.. Still, what would call it?
A
> .458 Magnum Fireball?
>
> Make sense.
Nope, since it's no longer chambered for the Fireball. See how
Remington lists the gun.
Robert
> Don't have to - you just did....
>
> The original POSTER on the XP-100 - issued in 1963 - BEFORE WEB PAGES -
> calls the weapon a Remington XP-100 Fireball.
So, the current information published by Remington is wrong? Have
you notified them of this? Please do, and let us know what they say.