Paul Baker

And you, Jim, are one of the most respected conspiracy theorists there is.

I'm referring to the initial investigation that established the salient facts, which were later corroborated by The Warren Commission. That Lee Harvey Oswald shot the President, and that he acted alone. Regarding Oswald's location at the time of the shooting, he was seen at the window with a gun. That same gun he took into work that very morning. The same gun that was ballistically linked to the crime. Etc.

In my opinion, the term 'conspiracy theorist' has become generally associated with the kind of individual that indulges in wild speculation and pure fantasy. Someone that is possibly unhinged. The kind of individual that is prone to rant, rave and attempt to shut down anyone that points out the often rather obvious and gaping holes in their outlandish ideas, whilst blindly agreeing with others that tow the basic conspiracy line, even when their ideas are incompatible. The kind of individual that tends to veer away from considered, scientific thinking and rationale. I think this is the general perception. Personally, having been a member here for quite a while now, I know you can't tar everyone with that same brush, but you don't have to travel far on this forum to form the notion that a conspiracy theorist isn't neccessarily someone that you should take too seriously. Sometimes it gets quite nasty. It's fair and accurate to say that nothing has been proven to contradict the basic conclusions of the DPD in the immediate wake of the assassination. Nothing. You'd expect a little more from what purports to be a serious research community. Precisely how much have a myriad of conspiracy theorists achieved over more than half a century to present a convincing alternative explanation of the known facts, to even nudge the ignorant masses a little closer towards their perceived truth? There are conspiracies and there are people that investigate them. But I think those that undertake serious research probably wouldn't comfortably describe themselves as 'conspiracy theorists'. A conspiracy theorist starts with the conviction that there must have been a conspiracy. Nothing on Earth will ever persuade them otherwise. So where does that lead? It's written all over this forum. I know that I could come on here as a 'conspiracy theorist', throw some near random nonsense into the mix that supports a conspiracy, and that I would be taken seriously by some. That does not suggest a cohesive, sensible research community. So if I were a conspiracy theorist and I wanted to be taken seriously, the last thing I would do is describe myself as such.

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.

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.

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.

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.

I'm still waiting Jim.

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

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/

Sure, go for it.

I can post you a calculator, if that helps.

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

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

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

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

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.

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.

Those poor trees, dying in vain.

Maybe the sound and force waves went beyond the bullet, as they would be less impeded. That might account for Connally's reaction and wounds. David J might be able to help us with this.

Wow, science! A force wave is created. A sound wave is created. Ergo, tissue gets messed up. I need to read a book about this stuff, it's way over my head.

No-one has ever demonstrated forgery of the Z-film. No-one. In any case, the whole idea is ridiculous, because the conspirators would have had to seize every bit of photographic and film evidence from every witness to ensure that the photographic record was consistent with their story. Stupid. Plain and simple. Of course, no matter how many times anyone points out this blaringly obvious flaw in the Z-film fakery story, along with all the others, it will still be bought up, again and again, ad infinitum. That's how 'research' works here ... ... along with much picking of cherries (in any case, of course, quite meaningless given the evidence that supports one shooter on the sixth floor of the TSBD, even if your statement is correct) ... ... and a plethora of false statements. I think you'll find, John, that the opposite in this case is true. I can't speak for anyone else, but as I've said more than once before: I don't care whether there was a conspiracy or not. I just wholeheartedly believe that this was the whim of a single, sad, lonely man, with a gun, one sunny day. Nothing suggests otherwise.

It's interesting, isn't it? That, when the 'bodged' autopsy helps to lend a modicum of weight to the tenuous arguments of a conspiracy theorist, then - in that respect at least - it wasn't bodged at all. Bodged in some respects yes, not in others. Three shots fired (heard by vast majority). One shooter (seen by a few). Bullet wound victims reacting simultaneously to an external stimulus (check out that Z film if you've never seen it). Shooter in perfect alignment with the victims and their wounds. No other weapons or ammunition found. It's kind of obvious. No amount of picking holes around the general periphery can really detract from any of that. I've read your book Jim, and that is its basic theme: avoid the facts at all cost and inject doubt. And I guess I must have somehow missed your theory that betters that of the WC, which surprises me, because I would have found that most interesting. You are of the opinion that it's likely that no shots were fired from the sixth floor of the TSBD on that day, so who knows what you really believe. I'm not even sure that you know.

Again, Jim. You've written nothing. Why do you keep doing that? All of this time you waste doing absolutely nothing, it's quite incredible. There is the single bullet theory, which is the best fit for the available evidence, as far as I know. So this 'stupid' question has to be asked again, I'm afraid. What is the alternative explanation? You don't have one, so you must rely on conjecture and supposition: evidence was mishandled or faked or whatever. All you're doing is attempting to discredit the theory, without providing a coherent alternative explanation, using 'evidence' that isn't evidence at all; that has essentially been woven out of whole cloth. While that approach might work in a court of law to plant doubt in the minds of a jury, it has no meaning whatsoever in what is laughingly referred to as a 'research community'. So Jim, what is the alternative explanation? Most people heard three shots, JFK and Connally reacted simultaneously to being shot, witnesses saw just a single shooter, no other bullets were found, and so on, so it would have to fit in with all of that real evidence. Good luck! I'm eager to read it.

Your consistency can be relied upon Jim, if little else. Once again, what you've written here amounts to nothing at all. Where is your alternative explanation of the evidence that supports the single bullet theory? I'm beginning to think you don't have one!