Jon G. Tidd Posted October 25, 2015 Share Posted October 25, 2015 Ramon, Yes as to your post #90. As to your post #76, I offer this: In my professional life, I've dealt with elite colleges and universities, their employees, and their alums. A major conclusion I've reached is that having an elite education is no guarantee one is knowledgable, one is a particularly good thinker, one can express oneself well. Yes, the persons I've known who have excelled in these attributes have been Ivy League law grads. But these few persons are the exception, not the rule. In examining the BYP, Farid, it's clear to me, had an agenda. That's not the Dartmouth academic standard. Shame on those academics who support Farid merely because he's a Dartmouth faculty member. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ramon F. Herrera Posted October 25, 2015 Author Share Posted October 25, 2015 (edited) Ramon, In examining the BYP, Farid, it's clear to me, had an agenda. That's not the Dartmouth academic standard. Shame on those academics who support Farid merely because he's a Dartmouth faculty member. Jon: You seem to have very little faith in the scientific method. There is only one indispensable detail missing from Dr. Farid's contribution. He and his team (you just claimed that all his students are in the conspiracy, BTW) should place every item, every note, every file used in their study on a web site. Then other universities would attempt their own study. Dartmouth: We used a 3D Maya model, and... Stanford: We disagree with the following parts. MIT: This is our study Harvard: And so forth, etc. CalTech: Our analyzes indicate ... Eventually, they will agree on some parts and some -out of shame and fear of ridicule- will refuse to support the modern equivalents of Geocentrism, Astrology and Alchemy. Survival of the fittest at its best. Truth by refinement. Keep in mind that in such competitive environment, there is nothing that satisfies a scientist more that calling his rival across the continent (in very diplomatic and polite terms): "Doctor Robinson from Georgia Tech is full of crap!". That is the way we went to the Moon and Mars, that is the way Polio was cured and the Genome was decoded. That is the way we invented the Internet. That is the way we will cure cancer and AIDS. That is not only the best way to the truth, but the ONLY way. Edited October 25, 2015 by Ramon F. Herrera Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ramon F. Herrera Posted October 25, 2015 Author Share Posted October 25, 2015 (edited) HEAD SHOT: THE SCIENCE BEHIND THE JFK ASSASSINATION by G. Paul Chambers Chapter 9: The Second Rifle in Dealey Plaza "Science is the ultimate test of truth. Lies and hypocrisy don't live long in the arena of modern scientific inquiry. It is fitting that the space program that Kennedy championed should ultimately provide the methodology for resolving the riddle of his death: the physics of rocket science (*). With the identity of the murder weapon and the origin of the fatal shot established, the chances of unraveling the tangled threads of the Kennedy assassination, the Gordian knot of murder mysteries, increase exponentially. The law of nature is Alexander's sword." (*) More specifically, the Finite Element Method and Computational Fluid Dynamics. Together, they form part of Multiphysics. -Ramon Edited October 6, 2016 by Ramon F. Herrera Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Glenn Nall Posted October 25, 2015 Share Posted October 25, 2015 sometimes I think there's more sanctimony in this forum than in Kruschev's Kremlin. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ramon F. Herrera Posted October 26, 2015 Author Share Posted October 26, 2015 (edited) "Sancti" == Saint == Religion == Opposite of Science. Kremlin == Communism == Opposite of Capitalism (and Competition) Edited October 26, 2015 by Ramon F. Herrera Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Glenn Nall Posted October 26, 2015 Share Posted October 26, 2015 yeah, uh, Ramon, in human communication there's also what's called nuance, which at time defies strict definition. a person who is sanctimonious possesses, by definition: "Righteousness accompanied by an unwarranted attitude of moral or social superiority; smug or hypocritical righteousness." which was exactly the personality of the Kremlin and of Communism. as well as some in this forum who do not know the difference between fact, opinion, and "my inarguable opinion." fitting that it was you who attempted to parse the words into obsoletion, fully proving my point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon G. Tidd Posted October 26, 2015 Share Posted October 26, 2015 Ramon, I do believe in the scientific method. Farid's efforts do not rise to the level of scientific method. Scientific method begins with a hypothesis, a tentative conclusion based on clearly stated assumptions. It proceeds with an experiment, in which the assumptions are present and the tentative conclusion is tested. Isaac Newton established this method of investigation. Farid made no hypothesis, no tentative conclusion, stated no assumptions, and made no experiment. He started with an assumption, and ended with the assumption. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ramon F. Herrera Posted October 26, 2015 Author Share Posted October 26, 2015 Farid made no hypothesis, no tentative conclusion, stated no assumptions, and made no experiment. He started with an assumption, and ended with the assumption. Jon: Do you know how easy and inexpensive it would be to replicate (or reject) the results obtained by the team at Dartmouth? Just go to this web page, click on "Student", "Faculty" or "Tutor" and get all the software for free. The classes are in YouTube. http://www.autodesk.com/ -Ramon Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ramon F. Herrera Posted November 23, 2016 Author Share Posted November 23, 2016 On 10/18/2015 at 5:35 PM, Ramon F. Herrera said: "I wish to re-emphasize that none of our test objects in these experiments with melons and skulls ever jumped or fell off the stand AWAY from the shooter." -- J.K. Lattimer Let's verify this bold statement with actual shots to human heads, shall we? ========================= I just found another !!! If you folks go to Netflix and watch this documentary: Oliver Stone The Untold History of the United States Episode 1, minute 13 https://www.netflix.com/watch/80127997 ... you will see 2 Chinese men shot by Japanese soldiers. I have been collecting those for years and this is the current score: • Human headshots in which the reaction is as if hit by a baseball bat: 100% • Human headshots in which the reaction is as described by the official version (defeating the momentum of the bullet): 0% The shameful Jet Effect has never been replicated by human heads and the Neuromuscular Effect has only been observed as tiny kicks, on goats. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Walton Posted November 23, 2016 Share Posted November 23, 2016 (edited) Putting this here. If these don't convince you that the silly "jet effect/neuromuscular spasm" theories are bunk, I don't know what will. Viewer discretion is advised for link #2: https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B7Hr9Lrku-CxNm9MNTY3UHVrR1k https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B7Hr9Lrku-CxU0V1ck1GZFN6TWM Edited November 24, 2016 by Michael Walton Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Crites Posted November 24, 2016 Share Posted November 24, 2016 We don't give the book Cover-Up enough credit for exposing Lattimer. It's been a while , but I can remember how well written Galanor's book is. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- WC supporters cite Dr. John Lattimer's wound ballistics tests to prove the single-bullet theory is credible. But Lattimer's test was flawed and the results of questionable value. Lattimer used animal tissue to simulate Kennedy's neck, a rib cage to simulate Connally's torso, and radius bones wrapped in simulated forearms to simulate Connally's forearm. But nothing was used to simulate Connally's back or chest muscles. Lattimer said four bullets out of twenty struck all three objects. A picture of one of the test bullets shows it was split at the nose in several places and was markedly deformed, much more deformed than CE 399. When Stewart Galanor asked Lattimer, in a filmed interview, if he could examine the bullets that struck all three simulation objects, Lattimer said he had thrown them away (Galanor, Cover-Up, New York: Kestrel Books, 1998, p. 42). How convenient. When asked about the deformed nature of the pictured bullet, Lattimer said all the damage to the missile was done when the missile struck a piece of metal after it passed through the test objects. So not only do we not have pictures of three of the four bullets from Lattimer's test that struck all the simulation objects, and not only do we not have the bullets themselves (since Lattimer says he threw them away), but we also must take Lattimer's word that all the damage to the one pictured bullet was done after the bullet passed through the test objects. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now