Mike Williams

Thom is 100% correct.

In the Marines Drill Instructors do not teach the recruits marksmanship. That is the job of the PMI, Primary marksmanship Instuctor.

When qualifying 3 people maintain the shooters score. The shooter himself, the PMI, and the person pulling the targets in the Butz. There is no communication between the butz and firing line, and all 3 scores have to match. IOW there is no cheating.

The Marine Corp basic doctrine is that every man is a rifle man first. The idea of pushing through someone who was substandard is ridiculous. They simply provide further training until the person masters the skill.

I love it when people show their ignorance by bringing up Delgado. We know that the qualification Delgado is referencing is the one in California in which Oswald scores a 191.

Do you know what Delgado scored on that same Qual? 192.........some superior shot huh?

Oswald was far from being a "poor" shot.

Only a few slight issues with that.

First there was no hole in the windshield, there was nothing but a chip, from the inside, with lead on it.

Now this lead should give us a clue about other things.

For those that think this was a direct hit of a missed bullet, you would have to explain what kind of firearm did this!

There is a very good reason that bullets have a copper jacket,

This chip had no copper, just lead.

The bullet hit something else first.

Robin is correct, IF he was wounded it was on the right cheek.

Over the years and in differnet videos he points to different cheeks at different times.......

At any rate.

The vast majority of witnesses recount 3 shots, so where the idea comes from that more than 3 were fired is odd at best. I do realize some talk about silencers, etc etc, however this really just shows what a fundemental error they make in evaluating the ballistic evidence.

I have posted several times, the most likely occurance of Tague getting wounded was the 3rd shot, and from a fragment of that third shot striking the chorme, etc.

Even a very small fragment would retain the velocity needed.

No mas! Not enough mass = not enough energy to do the damage

Kerb concrete has higher compressive strength and is more compact

Than shuttered concrete . If the upper split after hitting the chrome how did it

Elevate itself over the windscreen frame. If a fragment hit the chrome it's even less

Likely an even smaller piece could carry enough energy to actually damage the kerb.

Kerb and pedestrian concrete /slabs are more impact/ damage resistant as

Indicated by the drain cover. Finer more compact grains of the right size to interlock the Portland

Cement a bit like a fractal mass.

Then simply do the math and prove your case. Ive done it already and there is plenty of mass allowable and plenty of remining velocity.

Lets not go with what we think, lets do the work and prove the point.

Robin is correct, IF he was wounded it was on the right cheek.

Over the years and in differnet videos he points to different cheeks at different times.......

At any rate.

The vast majority of witnesses recount 3 shots, so where the idea comes from that more than 3 were fired is odd at best. I do realize some talk about silencers, etc etc, however this really just shows what a fundemental error they make in evaluating the ballistic evidence.

I have posted several times, the most likely occurance of Tague getting wounded was the 3rd shot, and from a fragment of that third shot striking the chorme, etc.

Even a very small fragment would retain the velocity needed.

A new article by Bill Brown.

http://www.jfkballistics.com/rubybasement.html

Hi Mike. This article seems to give a reasonable explanation to a debated question. I always found the timing a problem. It makes more sense that Ruby came down the ramp and poor Vaughn got snookered. Thank you

Tom,

I will pass your thanks on to Bill Brown who wrote this article. Thank You very much for your feedback and I hope you enjoy the site.

========================

Disruptive behavior 1:

===

Person appears not even able to handle basic mathematics with calculation for grains used in the Kinetic Energy Calculation example above. Such extreme ignorance show zero ability to continue any discussion and the basic issue appears to be troublemaking, providing intentional disruption. A online converter calculator was even including in the listing, making it nearly impossible to screw it up. Yet the person screwed it up: "You might want to recalibrate lol." obviously due to his comment.

Mike Williams, on 03 June 2011 - 03:53 PM, said:

You might want to recalibrate lol.

Here is another hint.

A bullet weight if one grain is 1/7000th of a pound.

An online calculator:

http://www.unitconve...conversion.html

Another online calculator:

http://www.easysurf.cc/cnver8.htm

The conversion factor is 70 Gr = 0.01 lb, which is consistent with all the conversions used above in the Kinetic Energy Balance Equation. "70 Gr Bullet" was selected because that is a typical 222/223 caliber bullet weight, so fits the Grassy Knoll and XP-100 type pistol.

=======

Disruptive behavior 2:

http://karws.gso.uri...high-speed.html

Source:

Dr. Vincent J. M. Di Maio, Chief Medical Examiner and Director of the Regional Crime Laboratory, County of Bexar, San Antonio, Texas (from his Gunshot Wounds, CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL, 1985)

Reference clearly states that Bullet effects on head pressure result on distribution of positive and negative pressures within the skull----meaning there is no a Pascal pressure distribution.

Complaint: Total failure to be able to comprehind known experts in the field of Ballistics and Gunshot wounds. Net result is the person wants to cause disruption and toss out constant nonsense.

===========

Disruptive Behavior 3:

Failure to be inclusing of the formation of gases due to gunshot bullet dynamic effects on heating:

http://books.google....epage&q&f=false

============

Disruptive Bahavior 4:

Failure to use the defintion for Pascal that requires the system to be "at rest," which means in a "static equilibrium" state with no flow or wave energy in the medium. Person shows a consistent Total failure to know the well established scientic language criteria to use Pascal's, or even to understand the basics of physics. Leaving one to think the only reason to keep up his repeating is absolute ignorance, or that of constant troublemaking. Either is not acceptable and disruptive to the thread's discussion via proper methods. These are attacks on the ability to have decent conversations using proper science application.

http://www.britannic...scals-principle

Pascal’s principle, also called Pascal’s Law, in fluid (gas or liquid) mechanics, statement that in a fluid at rest in a closed container a pressure change in one part is transmitted without loss to every portion of the fluid and to the walls of the container. The principle was first enunciated by the French scientist Blaise Pascal.

==============

IMHO

Well Jim, since you insist on re-posting things that show your ignorance of the subject, why not tell us just where I went wrong? Are you ever going to post the work that refutes me?

I just posted a new article discussing the problems with the testimony of Nelson Delgado. Delgado is one of the favorites that the conspiracy buffs like to quote in regard to the marksmanship of Lee Harvey Oswald.

http://www.jfkballistics.com/woes_delgado.html

One of the most interesting things is that this fella can't understand the difference between static, which is what his ramblings applied to, and dynamic. A bullet's impact doesn't follow the static systems rules because it doesn't apply due to pressure waves and the system not being in equilibrium.

Which means, there isn't any use in talking to someone illiterate in the sciences. It is a waste of everyone's time.

Take your nonsense somewhere else.

If you have all the answers, start your thead up, then lets have you list all your themes on Pascal so everyone can show them around to everyone. I'd say if you walked into any University with a Physics Professor they are going to laugh and offer you a chance to go to school. Well, on second thought, they might decide you might not be very smart in physics, and say goodbye.

Start your own theat name, toss out all your calculations, all your science proofs, or alledged science. Do it all without interference or comment from anyone else. If you are on the mark, then folks are going to be talking your theme. If not, then you get to be the science illiterate, which is my opinion.

I'd say your are absolutely afaid to start your own thead up and show your head shot analysis and do use that Pascal theme. I think you'll go down the drain in short order. I am not going to fool with teaching you why Pascal doesn't apply, as you appear exceedingly dense. I can't fix ignorance of science, nor do I want to even carry on a discussion with ignorance. There is no nice way to put it.

You only purpose around here is to keep talking like a brokern record on Pascal, Pascal, Pascal.

Pascal is only used for systems in equilibrium and without pressure waves. That is for those that know science, as the curent person can't seem to understand wave physics.

I am going to put you on "ignore," for the due cause of technical nonsense. I am also going to file a complaint that you are off the topic in even bringing up again Pascal again and again, which is a static system issue that doesn't apply to high vel bullets and I am going to show that experts in the field of ballistics agree. And that you are being disruptive.

Ignore, I figured as much.

I have to say, I find it heart breaking that anyone who follows the beliefs of Harris would put me on ignore.

I find it heart breaking that someone who does not understand that the very change in static to dynamic condition is precisely what Pascal is addressing. After all, it is the influence of pressure (dynamic), from an outside source, on liquid (in a static condition).

But one has to wonder why would you think that I would be afraid to post in another thread? I have posted this stuff many times, and not one time has it ever been refuted.

It also goes to note that for all your yammering, you have yet to refute it, you just continue to dance and gas bag along.

Speaking of gas as a fundamental you may want to research a few laws that continue to provide evidence of your ignorance.

Boyle's Law, Gay-Lussac's Law, and Charles' Law might be a good beginning, but first I suggest you brush up on high school physics. This will of course add to your understanding and comprehension of energy, momentum, and force. Which you have clearly shown you lack.

As for your complaint, I am not off topic at all. As far as I can tell this topic is about Robert Harris and his ridiculous conclusions, which you support, in regard to a second head shot based on the z film.

I refute your beliefs and Harris beliefs, and Pascals Law proves that you are incorrect. How is this off topic? How is this disruptive?

I am right on topic, and still addressing your claims of a second head shot.

I believe that you only find this disruptive, because you and your pseudo education are being taken to school on things you obviously know nothing about.

========================

Disruptive behavior 1:

===

Person appears not even able to handle basic mathematics with calculation for grains used in the Kinetic Energy Calculation example above. Such extreme ignorance show zero ability to continue any discussion and the basic issue appears to be troublemaking, providing intentional disruption. A online converter calculator was even including in the listing, making it nearly impossible to screw it up. Yet the person screwed it up: "You might want to recalibrate lol." obviously due to his comment.

Mike Williams, on 03 June 2011 - 03:53 PM, said:

You might want to recalibrate lol.

Here is another hint.

A bullet weight if one grain is 1/7000th of a pound.

An online calculator:

http://www.unitconve...conversion.html

Another online calculator:

http://www.easysurf.cc/cnver8.htm

The conversion factor is 70 Gr = 0.01 lb, which is consistent with all the conversions used above in the Kinetic Energy Balance Equation. "70 Gr Bullet" was selected because that is a typical 222/223 caliber bullet weight, so fits the Grassy Knoll and XP-100 type pistol.

=======

Disruptive behavior 2:

http://karws.gso.uri...high-speed.html

Source:

Dr. Vincent J. M. Di Maio, Chief Medical Examiner and Director of the Regional Crime Laboratory, County of Bexar, San Antonio, Texas (from his Gunshot Wounds, CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL, 1985)

Reference clearly states that Bullet effects on head pressure result on distribution of positive and negative pressures within the skull----meaning there is no a Pascal pressure distribution.

Complaint: Total failure to be able to comprehind known experts in the field of Ballistics and Gunshot wounds. Net result is the person wants to cause disruption and toss out constant nonsense.

===========

Disruptive Behavior 3:

Failure to be inclusing of the formation of gases due to gunshot bullet dynamic effects on heating:

http://books.google....epage&q&f=false

============

Disruptive Bahavior 4:

Failure to use the defintion for Pascal that requires the system to be "at rest," which means in a "static equilibrium" state with no flow or wave energy in the medium. Person shows a consistent Total failure to know the well established scientic language criteria to use Pascal's, or even to understand the basics of physics. Leaving one to think the only reason to keep up his repeating is absolute ignorance, or that of constant troublemaking. Either is not acceptable and disruptive to the thread's discussion via proper methods. These are attacks on the ability to have decent conversations using proper science application.

http://www.britannic...scals-principle

Pascal’s principle, also called Pascal’s Law, in fluid (gas or liquid) mechanics, statement that in a fluid at rest in a closed container a pressure change in one part is transmitted without loss to every portion of the fluid and to the walls of the container. The principle was first enunciated by the French scientist Blaise Pascal.

==============

IMHO

Jim,

Please stop. You continue to make yourself look foolish, and lose credibility by the minute.

It is, and has been readily apparent to everyone, that you have no clue what you are talking about.

You have made this more than evident Jim, and yet, you continue rambling on.

A new article by Bill Brown.

http://www.jfkballistics.com/rubybasement.html

One of the most interesting things is that this fella can't understand the difference between static, which is what his ramblings applied to, and dynamic. A bullet's impact doesn't follow the static systems rules because it doesn't apply due to pressure waves and the system not being in equilibrium.

Which means, there isn't any use in talking to someone illiterate in the sciences. It is a waste of everyone's time.

Take your nonsense somewhere else.

If you have all the answers, start your thead up, then lets have you list all your themes on Pascal so everyone can show them around to everyone. I'd say if you walked into any University with a Physics Professor they are going to laugh and offer you a chance to go to school.

Start your own theat name, toss out all your calculations, all your science proofs, or alledged science. Do it all without interference or comment from anyone else. If you are on the mark, then folks are going to be talking your theme. If not, then you get to be the science illiterate, which is my opinion.

I'd say your are absolutely afaid to start your own thead up and show your head shot analysis and do use that Pascal theme. I think you'll go down the drain in short order. I am not going to fool with teaching you why Pascal doesn't apply, as you appear exceedingly dense. I can't fix ignorance of science, nor do I want to even carry on a discussion with ignorance. There is no nice way to put it.

You only purpose around here is to keep talking like a brokern record on Pascal, Pascal, Pascal.

Pascal is only used for systems in equilibrium and without pressure waves. That is for those that know science, as the curent person can't seem to understand wave physics.

I am going to put you on "ignore," for the due cause of technical nonsense. I am also going to file a complaint that you are off the topic in even bringing up again Pascal again and again, which is a static system issue that doesn't apply to high vel bullets and I am going to show that experts in the field of ballistics agree. And that you are being disruptive.

Ignore, I figured as much.

I have to say, I find it heart breaking that anyone who follows the beliefs of Harris would put me on ignore.

I find it heart breaking that someone who does not understand that the very change in static to dynamic condition is precisely what Pascal is addressing. After all, it is the influence of pressure (dynamic), from an outside source, on liquid (in a static condition).

But one has to wonder why would you think that I would be afraid to post in another thread? I have posted this stuff many times, and not one time has it ever been refuted.

It also goes to note that for all your yammering, you have yet to refute it, you just continue to dance and gas bag along.

Speaking of gas as a fundamental you may want to research a few laws that continue to provide evidence of your ignorance.

Boyle's Law, Gay-Lussac's Law, and Charles' Law might be a good beginning, but first I suggest you brush up on high school physics. This will of course add to your understanding and comprehension of energy, momentum, and force. Which you have clearly shown you lack.

As for your complaint, I am not off topic at all. As far as I can tell this topic is about Robert Harris and his ridiculous conclusions, which you support, in regard to a second head shot based on the z film.

I refute your beliefs and Harris beliefs, and Pascals Law proves that you are incorrect. How is this off topic? How is this disruptive?

I am right on topic, and still addressing your claims of a second head shot.

I believe that you only find this disruptive, because you and your pseudo education are being taken to school on things you obviously know nothing about.

Jim,

You might want to recalibrate lol.

Here is another hint.

A bullet weight if one grain is 1/7000th of a pound.

Clearly you could save on energy costs in winter by talking rather than running the furnace.

In the physical sciences, Pascal's law or the Principle of transmission of fluid-pressure states that "pressure exerted anywhere in a confined incompressible fluid is transmitted equally in all directions throughout the fluid such that the pressure ratio (initial difference) remains the same."[1]

\Delta P =\rho g (\Delta h)\,

where

ΔP is the hydrostatic pressure (given in pascals in the SI system), or the difference in pressure at two points within a fluid column, due to the weight of the fluid;

ρ is the fluid density (in kilograms per cubic meter in the SI system);

g is acceleration due to gravity (normally using the sea level acceleration due to Earth's gravity in metres per second squared);

Δh is the height of fluid above the point of measurement, or the difference in elevation between the two points within the fluid column (in metres in SI).

The intuitive explanation of this formula is that the change in pressure between two elevations is due to the weight of the fluid between the elevations.

Note that the variation with height does not depend on any additional pressures. Therefore Pascal's law can be interpreted as saying that any change in pressure applied at any given point of the fluid is transmitted undiminished throughout the fluid. Equation: (P1)(V1) = (P2)(V2)

Pascals law is a matter of how pressure is transmitted through fluid, Jim, It has nothing at all to do with any of the gibberish you have posted. Mr. Hogan, and Mr. Colby are dead on the money.

Additionally the equation you posted is almost humerus in its very nature in discussing this subject.

Jim, stop while you are ahead, your continued ramblings only further indicate that you do not posses the education to broach such a subject.

The explanation is simple. There was no second head shot.

For one, the energy required to move the head back in the fashion we see, is impossible from a bullet.

Once one realizes that this rearward movement can not be attributed to a bullet, then things become much easier to reason.

We do know that there was blood and brain matter forward of the target, so much so that is was on the inside of the windshield, the outside of the windshield, and ALL the way up to the hood ornament of the limo. Furthermore, it had to oppose a 12-15 mph headwind to get there!

Unless one can claim that for a 60 second period on 11/22/63 the laws of physics were suspended, then there is no survivable claim that there was a second frontal head shot.

It really boils down to equal and opposite reactions. A large blood cloud emitted from the front, attributed to a rear entering bullet should, and would be replicated from the rear, if a front entering bullet had exited the back of the head.

Mike

Mike, I too am of the opinion that there was only one shot. If I may ask , what do you think accounts for Kennedy's backward movement? Best, Daniel

Daniel,

I could only speculate. It is rather clear that a bullet can not do this. See the references above. It is just as clear that the jet effect is only so much horse poo. I should explain that one I suppose.

Blood, being a fluid, and brain matter being a semi fluid, have two unique qualities, they do not compress to any significant degree. Having said that, since they do not compress significantly, they can not expand significantly.

In other words, rapid expansion of fluid to cause a jet effect is impossible merely because the fluid itself does not possess the expansion needed to accomplish this.

Gas on the other hand does have the ability to expand rapidly. Think dynamite.

Now, from personal experience I can tell you that a person struck in the head with a bullet can do some unpredictable things. Run, Jump, or, at times, just fall straight down.

My best guess Daniel is a muscular reaction.

This seems to be indicated in many ways, but this to me seems the most likely scenario.

Mike

Greg,

Thanks for posting that. Is this in the record somewhere? I do not believe I have read this before.

Hi Mike. Yes, this is the text of an Official Justice Department Document. There is literally no doubt as to its authenticity. This is the memorandum of the TAPED telephonic conversation between LBJ and Hoover. It received NO news coverage whatsoever. When the LBJ tapes were finally declassified and made available on the internet--it was as if this was insignificant.

Amazing.

Greg,

I would like to read more about his, are there threads here on it? This is pretty intriguing stuff.

I don't know if there are threads on that subject here, Mike. However, way back in 2000 I did a presentation on it for JFK LANCER -- I think I was the first one to point it out at a conference (maybe not). I also sent copies of the text of the actual conversation, copies of the audio tape itself, and copies of the above memorandum to EVERY NEWS SERVICE of which I was aware (ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, AP, UPI, C-SPAN) -- and guess what? I received not even a reply. Keep in mind, I did not claim it was definitive proof of anything. I purposely made sure I did not come across as a "loon" -- I simply made the information available. Not a peep from them...nothing. Then, finally, C-SPAN replied and thanked me. They have done a good job archiving, but that's it.

Greg,

You know my position on this case. There are Few CT's that I respect as much as I do you. I can only hold this in thought, and look further into it. Thank you for showing this to me.

More Pascal's Gas Equation it appears.

You really are a Marine.

The subject was and always has been there the Bob Harris Bulge video of the Zapruder Film. Bob nailed the second bullet effects.

Pascal Law revolves around pressure in fluid Jim.

Bob failed to prove this issue as miserably as you have failed to show my calculations wrong.

So, are you going to prove yourself and Harris correct, and prove me wrong with the actual calculations needed anytime soon?

Here is a small hint for you. A .50 caliber BMG which has massive bullet size (700g) and incredible FPE, only moves a 200+ pound object 2.5 inches even when the bullet remains in the target.

I note you completely dodge my remarks of Harris's work. I figured you would. You dodged them as handily as you dodged proving me wrong.

You Jim, have proven to be a wind bag, but there is hope, I ask yet again for you to show that I am incorrect.

Greg,

Thanks for posting that. Is this in the record somewhere? I do not believe I have read this before.

Hi Mike. Yes, this is the text of an Official Justice Department Document. There is literally no doubt as to its authenticity. This is the memorandum of the TAPED telephonic conversation between LBJ and Hoover. It received NO news coverage whatsoever. When the LBJ tapes were finally declassified and made available on the internet--it was as if this was insignificant.

Amazing.

Greg,

I would like to read more about his, are there threads here on it? This is pretty intriguing stuff.

Jim,

I also should add this as it pertains.

Is this the same Robert Harris who claims to have been studying the assassination for decades, and YET:

1) Proposes a Dal Tex shooter from an obviously closed window?

2) Claims the Limo was black

3) Claimed to own a Carcano just like Oswald's, and yet, never knew the scope was a cantilever mount? (that's a fancy word for side mount)

4) That claimed the jump seat sat on rails and was adjustable.

5) That claims JFK is grimacing shielding his face, when everyone, including the witnesses say he was smiling and waving?

6) That claimed Jackie never climbed out on the trunk?

7) That claims a shot at 285 narrowly misses the limo,(because he studied it "very closely" in his cad program) Only to find out this shot goes over by some 40 feet.

8) That claims Ronald Fuller, who's stretcher was near JBC's, was an accidental shooting victim.

9) That claims not one single person reacted to a shot before z285. Guess he missed the whole 223 thing huh?

10) That claims the evidence envelope from CE 842 was altered and forged. Just to find out all he had to do was turn the envelope over to see Fritz initials?

I have to tell you Jim, to applaud the work of Harris speaks volumes about you.

Greg,

Thanks for posting that. Is this in the record somewhere? I do not believe I have read this before.

I guess there must be a story per this "Sgt. Mickey" term. I might know why.

Humm--last time I heard this "Dancing" term was about some Artsy guys in New Jesey crowing over 911, they got kicked out of the country shortly afterwards. I wonder where they got sent?

Those guys had a soap box.

It always helps to have a little noise on a topic. Keeps it number one on the list.

Then the strategy is keep the examples and proofs rather simple and down to Earth, as many shy away from math and physics. These JFK folks are just regular folks and that is the audience here.

So, got a Harris video that shows the two component damage and motion.

Got a Noble Physicist that agrees with the video by Harris.

Got some practical examples on head motion expected from similar energy exchange events. Video backs it up.

Got some rather simple science involved on mass and velocity.

So, lets keep this item number one on the list. I'll trickle out some more common sense examples from time to time.

Are you going to post the work of this physicist?

Are you ever going to address my query about Pascals law?

Do you even know what that is Jim?

Do you have any idea just why pascals law applies to the topic at hand?

Oh someone is dancing alright, and its pretty clear its Jim here.

Stop dancing Jim and get to work.

So anyone who makes the claim that there is a second head shot is left with 2 choices:

1) To contend the Z film is altered, something no expert has ever claimed...

Several experts have claimed exactly that, Mike. To name just one, for example, there is Dr. Roderick Ryan, who has a Ph.D. from the University of Southern California, majoring in cinema/communications. He is a retired scientist from KODAK, where he worked from 1947 until 1986 in several engineering and executive positions, including regional director of engineering services--motion picture division. His entire career has been devoted to motion picture film technology. He received numerous awards and recognitions during his career including, The Scientific & Engineering Award from the Society of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences in 1982. He is a Fellow of the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences and a member of the Committee for Selection of Scientific and Technical Awards, Special Effects, Documentary Films. -- among many other commendations and recognitions. In other words, he is an expert. See Bloody Treason pages 154 -160 (TWYMAN) for more details on Dr. Ryans credentials and his conclusions, one of which is his opinion that the "blobs" had been "painted in". -- Not easy to summarily dismiss coming from one of his expertise, no?

Greg,

Hope you have been well!

I would have to read more on this before commenting. Initially I would expect to see such epic news in the New York Times....

I mean from a historical stand point, an expert coming forward to claim the z film is altered would be epic, would you not agree?

I've been pretty well, Mike. Thanks for asking. Other than a case of whiplash from a huge wave in Hawaii last month--I'm fine. Now, back to the topic. I really don't expect the MSM to print things like that, do you? As an example, I remember sending C-SPAN a copy of an LBJ taped phone conversation with HOOVER in which HOOVER tells LBJ that [paraphrased] "If Connally wouldn't have been in the way, the president would have been hit by all three shots!" Well, now think about that one for a minute, Mike. How could Connally, who was seated IN FRONT of JFK, ever have been in the way of a shot intended for JFK if the shooter was located behind JFK? Yet, you can go to C-SPAN and find that telephone conversation for yourself...but, will it EVER appear in the New York Times? Not a chance.

Greg,

Hope you recover well!

I have no doubt that if the mass media heard about this they would print it. They slaughter the political stem daily, why hold back now?

As for the LBJ tape, I have not heard it, and do not know the context to take it in.

The logic is very simple-----and most person see right past your smoke screen. Bob Harris video is very telling, and there are folks that don't want that well established.

Your analysis isn't realistic, it is very difficult to write equations on text boards.

The refute my analysis, and don't give me any crap about difficulty posting equations. I do it all the time. Thats a cop out Jim, and it is as telling as your obvious mistakes regarding energy and force, not to mention your complete lack of understanding the physics presented.

But for those that do want to understand the math, pick up some engineering books on Dymanics or Physics Books on Kinetic Energy and you'll find all the proof one needs. And take note that a Nobel Prize winning Physicist addressed the problem and said two bullets. Dr. Feinman was correct. Or those that know some College professors, show them the Bob Harris video and ask them to do the 1/2 M V**2 calculations.

I'll let you go on for a while, let you get real foolish looking. Who knows, I might toss the anaysis over to Bob Harris, and let him do the speading it around.

Well its only been posted some 30 times on JFK boards. I am sure Harris has seen it. Unfortunately Harris lacks the same ability you do. You both appear woefully inadequate to address the subject.

Im still waiting for you to post the work of Feinman. I smell BS. Whats taking you so long Jim?

Perhaps we'll find something like Ms. Moorman speaks and tells she was standing on the grass when she took her famous JFK photo, and all that noise about she was standing on the road as shown by poor analysis with LASERs and pseudo science hand waving made them look so dumb. Ms. Moorman now ends up proving Zapruder Valid.

Or Perhaps you'll see Mooreman's recent interview where she confirms she was standing on the grass?

We'll let you heat this up some and get a lot of people making some claims.

Make some more noise---get out on the limb with your claims.

Lets let you get way out on your limb. Keep going.

I think we'll have the board chucking here soon.

Ok so so far what we have from you is a bunch of "I thinks", a few exhibits that you don't comprehend energy, momentum and clearly don't know the difference between ft lbs energy and ft lbs force. We have a quick and transparent cop out that you cant post equations on a board, and then just a bunch of useless chin music.

So are you going to put up, and prove me wrong as I have ask for two days now?

How long must we wait?

Well, lets just do a little practical example. We'll let you do the math, just to see if you can. So far, all I see from your side is hand waving trying to pretend science.

In place of a head, lets use a nice turkey with about the same mass as a human head, and fill it with a medium like silicon RTV and let it setup. It isn't a perfect model for a head, as the internal skull pressure containment factors won't happen from a turkey body, but the energy and velocity transfer effects will happen. Lets lay it on a smooth oiled stainless steel table and shoot it with a hollow point hunting bullet so the bullet will deliver maximum kinetic energy exchange and not exit the turkey body.

Once again showing your lack of knowledge. You talk a fair game to those who know no better, but when you refer to energy and velocity transfer, your giving yourself away. Energy is consumed Mr. Phelp, momentum is transferred, and velocity, or the change in this velocity is the result.

The simple physics equations tell there must be near instantaneous conservation of energy as the bullet impacts and delivers its forward kinetic energy to the turkey body on the table. So, one drags out the nice simple equation of 1/2 M V^2 for the kinetic energy going in from the bullet and then one can calculate the instantaneous velocity of the bullet with turkey body in combination moving in the same direction. In free space the turkey body will be seen to move along across the table with a velocity that is only damped by friction with the table.

Are you kidding me? Come on Mr. Phelps. Really now? I find it amusing you seem to be using a principle of conservation of momentum, and referring to it as energy. You really need to rely more on education than wikipedia....

So, on the oiled surface table the hollow point bullet will impact the turkey body and it will them move down range and fall off the table due to low frictional resistance. Resistance plays a big role in how quickly the velocity transfer would be reduced by friction. With no friction the turkey body would go on for miles down range, if it were to happen in space. It is the principle of all mass reaction systems in space, and this is a mass reaction system. Works on land too, but you have to be inclusive of frictional effects. But for an oiled table it would go far enough to slide off the table.

In the case for JFK the velocity damping is carried out by his being alive and muscles tensed for the first shot, and dead for the second shot. JFK's head moves forward several inches due to the 1st from the rear shot. For the 2nd shot his is essentially dead, and the second shot will start off a similar velocity toward the rear and will be aided by gravity and perhaps some limo acclerations. But that same 1st shot type motion will be more accentuated for the 2nd and continue due to gravity. Stand a broom handle up and shoot it with anything and it will fall over, most of the 2nd shot effects is just him falling over to the side. JFK's limp body offered little resistance to damping for the second shot. So, the movement from the 2nd bullet's initial velocity transfer took a lot of travel to retard the velocity.

That you don't know this most simple factors of physics tells me that you perhaps need to go find a local university that has a physics department and sign up for classes or pay one of them to tutor you for these type energy and velocity transfer effects, and include that all important frictional factor effect that is essential toward how far the initial velocity transfer effect travels. Friction effects are everything for this mass reaction type analysis, and you have admitting being totally vapid of those essential elements for the analysis.

So far, you have done a lot of nonsense hand waving and the technical analysis is so poor that your vapidity on velocity transfer at impact and velocity damping effects are nonexistant. That simply isn't science, nor can I conclude you have any expertise per your being lacking of those essential methods of simple physics.

Then step up to the plate, and use the real world numbers, and show the calculations that prove me wrong, just as I asked in my initial post.

I believe you have seen what I claim, now let see your work to refute it.

Thus far the only hand waving and Bsing has come from you.

SO should I expect a reply soon that even resembles the idea that you know what you are talking about?

So anyone who makes the claim that there is a second head shot is left with 2 choices:

1) To contend the Z film is altered, something no expert has ever claimed...

Several experts have claimed exactly that, Mike. To name just one, for example, there is Dr. Roderick Ryan, who has a Ph.D. from the University of Southern California, majoring in cinema/communications. He is a retired scientist from KODAK, where he worked from 1947 until 1986 in several engineering and executive positions, including regional director of engineering services--motion picture division. His entire career has been devoted to motion picture film technology. He received numerous awards and recognitions during his career including, The Scientific & Engineering Award from the Society of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences in 1982. He is a Fellow of the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences and a member of the Committee for Selection of Scientific and Technical Awards, Special Effects, Documentary Films. -- among many other commendations and recognitions. In other words, he is an expert. See Bloody Treason pages 154 -160 (TWYMAN) for more details on Dr. Ryans credentials and his conclusions, one of which is his opinion that the "blobs" had been "painted in". -- Not easy to summarily dismiss coming from one of his expertise, no?

Greg,

Hope you have been well!

I would have to read more on this before commenting. Initially I would expect to see such epic news in the New York Times....

I mean from a historical stand point, an expert coming forward to claim the z film is altered would be epic, would you not agree?

nice dodge Sgt. Mikey.....

Why would that be a dodge David?

Unlike yourself, I would prefer to be informed before rendering an opinion. I know you do not partake of this particular habit, I myself do.

Glenn,

I read some several pages of this thread, just to note that the subject quickly turned to angles yet again, which of course tossed your original question off track.

I do not know if your original question was answered, as I could not bear to wade through any more crap to find out.

The simple answer, is that NO there is nothing that says the bullet would travel a straight and perfect course.

I would offer that has the bullet struck at a 90 degree angle to the target the likely hood of a straight and true course might be greater.

You might want to read some of Sturdivan's testimony in regard to the yaw considerations of the bullet.

I might also suggest looking about for some examples of bullets striking ballistic gel at odd angles.

Hope this helps.

Mike

So anyone who makes the claim that there is a second head shot is left with 2 choices:

1) To contend the Z film is altered, something no expert has ever claimed...

Several experts have claimed exactly that, Mike. To name just one, for example, there is Dr. Roderick Ryan, who has a Ph.D. from the University of Southern California, majoring in cinema/communications. He is a retired scientist from KODAK, where he worked from 1947 until 1986 in several engineering and executive positions, including regional director of engineering services--motion picture division. His entire career has been devoted to motion picture film technology. He received numerous awards and recognitions during his career including, The Scientific & Engineering Award from the Society of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences in 1982. He is a Fellow of the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences and a member of the Committee for Selection of Scientific and Technical Awards, Special Effects, Documentary Films. -- among many other commendations and recognitions. In other words, he is an expert. See Bloody Treason pages 154 -160 (TWYMAN) for more details on Dr. Ryans credentials and his conclusions, one of which is his opinion that the "blobs" had been "painted in". -- Not easy to summarily dismiss coming from one of his expertise, no?

Greg,

Hope you have been well!

I would have to read more on this before commenting. Initially I would expect to see such epic news in the New York Times....

I mean from a historical stand point, an expert coming forward to claim the z film is altered would be epic, would you not agree?

The limp person effect is like shooting a baseball laying on a flat table. The imparted energy makes for a rearward velocity that continues until it encounters resistance. Since JFK is limp at the second shot, the motion is not damped and the rearward velocity of the head allows for his to fall back and to the left side.

Well Jim, if your first remarks did not offer grave doubt as to your understanding of physics, these certainly do.

I do not believe I have ever read that the effects of momentum are based upon living or dead objects.

The weight of the target remains the same.

I can't agree with you energy transfer factors from the two bullets. You only get that low a value in very special cases, and it is nonsense to apply those values to JFK's ballistics case.

Of course you could not agree, unless you understood the subject matter!

The opportunity for you to do the calculations and show that I am wrong is upon you. Give it a go.

IMHO, wrong assumptions are being made.

Plus, this scalp pooched out area happens well after the first rear of the head shot, and that indicates energy injected into the skull after the first shot.

We even have a Noble Prize winning Physicist that comes to the same conclusion. Recalling Dr. Feinman's analysis.

Sorry, don't buy your math energy transfer assumptions.

I might go with some red tint added on the Z-film, but I'd have to look at it myself to see it. But, too many people saw stuff fly out the rear of JFK's head and that blob on the back formed latently from the first shot's impact. Can't deny such obvious physics. So, don't agree the Z-film has black blobs painted in, but there could well be that happening on the Life Magazine photo. The grey scales appear to do well on Zapruder, but not the Life Magazine photo.

If you feel wrong assumptions are being made, again, show the work and I will be glad to retract. I would rather be accurate than right any day. You ahve to golden opportunity to prove me wrong.

As far as the claim that the back of the head bulges out after the rear entering bullet....I would think we should see this with a single entry to the back of the head. The real question here, is why do you think this has to be a ramification of a front entering bullet?

Are you at all familiar with Pascals laws of fluid dynamics?

I have not read Feinman's analysis. I would certainly have to do that before offering comment on his analysis, or your interpretation of it.