Search the Community

In a nutshell: the CTs defend a very rare shot, while the LNs propose an impossible shot. Why rare? Because if we look at the "Myth Busters" episode we see that the body of a pig was hanging from a hook, very close to an edge while a succession of projectiles of varying calibers failed at the commended task of dismounting the porcine sample. Therefore, the Hollywood back blast is a myth. Or, is it? What you read above constitutes a crucial error in science: failing to make proper use of analogous situations. Whether it is this TV case, or Robert Prudhomme, attempting to translate his experience with deer or selecting melons instead of coconuts (shame on you, doctor Alvarez!). Proper analogous shots (for purposes of real life human beings caught in YouTube, animals, physical simulations or pure computer simulations) include: - Very hard material, since the cranium happens to be the hardest of all bones. Mother Nature knows the importance of protecting the brain. - A semi-spheric chamber, able to accumulate pressure and suddenly release it. Yes, you are correct if you immediately envisioned a bomb. Both the hanging pork and the Canadian deer have a very small brain, leaving those two proposals unacceptable. That's all I have for now. Feel free to respond or wait until I remove the "Work in Progress" sign. -Ramon

[Women and men working - Come back later] Comparison of Gunshot Entrance Morphologies Caused by .40-Caliber Smith & Wesson, .380-Caliber, and 9-mm Luger Bullets: A Finite Element Analysis Study http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0111192 -RFH

A lot of events and phenomena can be simulated. With every passing year, not only does the universe of things that can be successfully subjected to simulation grow, but the degree of the endeavor and thus the accuracy of the results improves. Let's use a dice as an example. The simplest simulation would be a one-liner program: Result = rnd(6); This assumes a perfect dice, which is not always the case. Read on... ============================================= Anecdote: When I was a child in a carnival back home, there was a "magician" with a table and some dice. After reading the rules posted behind him, I was sure that there was a way I could easily win. Soon, the fool in me was separated from his money. So, I decided to stick around and observe the M.O. of the enterprising guy closely. Sometimes, he would insert his hand inside his pocket and retrieve another pair of dice. These ones were a tiny bit flattened. You could see that the black dots that formed the numbers 3 and 4 were smaller (you probably know that the opposite sides of a dice always add up to 7, correct?) ============================================= Just to make the problem a thousand times harder, consider: - the difference in weight of the 6 faces. and a million times even harder - the effect of aerodynamics in those carved tiny holes as the dice spins around in mid-air and bounces off the table. For the impatient: With the advancements in science and technology, it turns out that simulating the fatal shot that hit president Kennedy -and thus discovering the precise trajectory of the projectile- is indeed a lot harder than my one-liner computer program above, but A LOT easier than the last dice simulation. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simulated_reality

Folks, please take a look at the latest production of my trusted team of animators: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dKC_zBA50HA&feature=youtu.be What you see above is the first step toward obliterating the official version, depicted below: Look closely: the head does not move 1 cm. This has been demonstrated empirically by the other side, of all people. The supreme irony. One strong possibility is that for a tangential shot it is physically impossible to make an adult airborne. The violent move (seen not only in the Z-film) is a mathematical absurdity. The argument I am attempting is known as reductio ad absurdum. This hypothesis needs to be proven beyond a shadow of a doubt, correct?. Thank God, we have science and technology on our side. They are closer to us with every passing month and year. Indeed, we need to go from animation to simulation. What is the difference, you ask? Answer: Several zeros to the right of the dollar sign, not to mention brainpower and the participation of universities. -Ramon