Jump to content
The Education Forum

Paul Baker

Members
  • Content Count

    333
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Paul Baker

  • Rank
    Advanced Member

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Paul Baker

    A simple question to James DiEugenio

    Yes, apologies for making the assumption that you were avoiding the question. But this specific subject is something that is widely used to shore up many ideas of a conspiracy, time and time again. The fact remains that, if you do the simple maths, you'll come up with a number that in no way accounts for any level of violent movement of the target when a small, high velocity projectile hits it, and this isn't even accounting for the penetrative power of the bullet, which is - after all - what they are generally designed to do. They're meant to penetrate and cause damage: not bounce off of things to merely push them in a particular direction, and even if they did do that, that wouldn't automatically give rise to any level of violent movement. It's very basic, proven science and maths. Proven several hundred years ago, in fact. When anyone says that the rearward movement of JFK at the time of the headshot is consistent with being shot from the front, that simply isn't true, or is at best misleading. Robert Groden said it, I believe, when the Z-film was shown in the mid-seventies on TV. He may have even said the same to the HSCA. Jim Garrison (or at least, Kevin Costner) said it over and over in Oliver Stone's film JFK ('Back and to the left, back and to the left ...'). People expect this to happen when someone is shot, and that is the only reason it becomes a compelling argument to most people. Reality doesn't support it. You can argue about neurological reactions to being shot, but that could happen in any direction and is not neccessarily related to the direction of travel of the bullet. The movement of JFK in response to the headshot is not relevant. Indeed, if you look at a high contrast rendering of Z313 you can clearly see where some of the bullet's momentum has been spent. It's moving forwards relative to the motion of the limousine; i.e. it has travelled there from somewhere behind.
  2. Paul Baker

    A simple question to James DiEugenio

    Jim doesn't exactly hold back in terms of throwing insults about, in my opinion. I can't see how you can read many of his comments any other way.
  3. Paul Baker

    A simple question to James DiEugenio

    This is what I objected to. That someone still refers to this action as proof of the direction of a shot. I did a calculation a while back that showed that a bullet would impart a maximum velocity of 1m/s, and that's a theoretical maximum. People only fly in the direction of a bullet in films. It amazes me that anyone can still use the apparent movement of JFK in response to being shot as proof of shot direction, when it means very little at all.
  4. Paul Baker

    A simple question to James DiEugenio

    Jim, as usual, avoids reality. HIs motivation fascinates me more that that of Lee Harvey Oswald. He can't, and won't, answer a very simple question. End of.
  5. Paul Baker

    A simple question to James DiEugenio

    I'm still waiting Jim.
  6. Paul Baker

    A simple question to James DiEugenio

    My rather simple question remains. Can you work it out, instead of stalling?
  7. Paul Baker

    A simple question to James DiEugenio

    You've watched too many films, Jim. I'm still waiting for your answer. Basic physics. Very basic. Use your computer. Search for 'the principle of the conservation of momentum'. I'll tell you what, I'll do that for you. https://www.dummies.com/education/science/physics/how-the-principle-of-conservation-of-momentum-works/
  8. Paul Baker

    A simple question to James DiEugenio

    Sure, go for it.
  9. Paul Baker

    A simple question to James DiEugenio

    I can post you a calculator, if that helps.
  10. Paul Baker

    A simple question to James DiEugenio

    Still struggling with that Jim? I'll post the answer soon.
  11. Paul Baker

    A simple question to James DiEugenio

    Go on, take a run at it. I'll check out your calculations.
  12. Paul Baker

    A simple question to James DiEugenio

    Jim, you've gone quiet. If you're struggling with the concept of momentum, PM me.
  13. Paul Baker

    A simple question to James DiEugenio

    I can help with the maths. Or math, as you probably say.
  14. Paul Baker

    A simple question to James DiEugenio

    Choice words, as always, Jim. I've written about the physics behind the head shot before. Do a search, I'm not repeating it here. Nevertheless, let me ask you a pertinent question: What velocity would you expect a bullet weighing 0.05kg to impart on a weight of 5kg, fired from a distance of 81 metres with a muzzle velocity of 700 metres per second? Making it simple, assume we're talking about a closed system uninfluenced by the effects of gravity and anything else, inside a vacuum. Keep the bullet speed constant. Those variables are almost negligible in this context. There's a simple equation that will help you with this. You can research it. You are a researcher, after all. Let's have an answer, Jim. No more of those evasive tactics you employed on Black Op Radio during the 'debate' with McAdams. Answer the question. I challenge you.
  15. Paul Baker

    A simple question to James DiEugenio

    Analytical thinking isn't your strong point, is it Jim? How can anyone argue with someone so inherently illogical. Someone who to this day still believes - like many others - that he won a debate with John McAdams on Black Op Radio. Even after failing miserably to answer his closing and extremely salient question. So you're saying there was more than one shooter, or none, I infer. The latter premise, though extremely improbable, I wouldn't put past you. Perhaps someone injected JFK with some kind of brain exploding drug the day before. Connally was just a coincidence. Someone, at the same time, wanted to kill him. As soon as you begin to travel down a path beyond the bleeding obvious, you begin to pile up a pile of logical fallacies, assumptions and false premises. Recently I got caught up in a discussion about 9/11. I asked someone if they thought it was all a big cover-up. The emphatic answer: 'Of course it was!'. You see, whenever something happens that is so big, and has such far reaching consequences, perceived or otherwise, there has to be something more to it, doesn't there? Most people leapt to that vacuous conclusion without any undue consideration. That this forum exists, that there have been so many words written about the events of 22 November 1963, is testimony to that idea. How can a pathetic little man with a gun, make so much difference? The fact is that JFK was shot by a relative nobody with a big fat chip on his shoulder. His motivation is the biggest mystery, and the only real mystery that remains, and will always remain.
×