Bob Harris and the Battle of The Bulge

[Jim Phelps]

Even when given a great big hint on the equation to use, I tend to see total vapidity for basic algebra. I suspect we are dealing with persons that never even completed high school, who have shown that they can't even do this most simple math problem. This is a very simple algebra problem and the science used is a common example in every physics and dynamics text book at the most basic levels.

The method to calculate speed of bullet to head transition is really easy. It is a Kinetic Energy Balance equation.

1/2 (Mass1) (Velocity1)*2 = 1/2 (Mass2) (Velocity2)*2

So, do some varible moving around:

Velocity1 = sq rt (M2/M1) * Velocity2

2,000 fps = sq rt (20 lbs / 1/100 lb) * Velocity2

2,000 = sq rt (2000) * Velocity 2

2,000 / sq rt (2000) = Velocity 2

2,000 / 12.6 = Velocity 2 = 158 fps

So, the initial conditions were Mass of bullet 1/100 lbs with 2,000 fps and mass of head is 20 lbs.

Now, that was the lossless number, so have to toss in some loss for thermalization effects, so reducing the energy transfer by 1/2. That gives about 80 fps, so the head can easily jump forward very quickly, in one frame. The distance of the jump forward is determined by resistance. For JFK's head the jump forward is about 3 inches, or the amount from a good solid boxer punch. The jump rearward has less resistance and the velocity component never goes to zero until he falls all the way over.

======

Bullet weight considerations:

http://www.unitconversion.org/weight/grains-to-pounds-conversion.html

1/100 lb = 70 grains = 0.01 lbs

=======

Range of motion criteria:

The head is attached to the torso, so the range of motion of the head is retrained by a much larger torso mass that is connected with strong cord like effect of the spine, and damping effects of the neck muscles. What that means is the rather large transfer velocity's energy is quickly absorbed over the short range of head motion for the first shot. The second shot appears to have coupled to the torso mass somewhat, with gravity aiding, and results in a longer period of motion to the rear.

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

All this has been the most basic algebra that most can work in their heads without need to even write it down. Certainly persons like Dr. Feynman also quickly made these same associations in his assessments for two shots to the head.

Edited June 3, 2011 by Jim Phelps

[Michael Hogan]

Ahhhh ahahah. Pascal's Law is a gas equation usually dedicated to hot air.

No, it is not.

Oh, Yes it does apply to hot air. Anything that exhibits ideal gas properties, even steam. It only has to be near static and not flowing at high velocity.

So, is this Hogan's Law, as yours appears to not respect the definition, thus reality!

Now you're trying to change your statement. You said that it was "usually dedicated to hot air," which is clearly wrong.

Anyone can Google Pascal's Law and see that it is not "usually dedicated to hot air." It takes less than a minute to do so.

I didn't say that it did not apply to hot air. Guys like you that put words in the mouth of others and then couch it with insults are a waste of time.

I've seen you do that since you joined the forum.

It's tempting to give you a larger dose of your own insulting language, but I'm gonna pass this time. Most forum members figured you out

shortly after you started posting here.

Edited June 3, 2011 by Michael Hogan

[Jim Phelps]

Ahhhh ahahah. Pascal's Law is a gas equation usually dedicated to hot air.

No, it is not.

Oh, Yes it does apply to hot air. Anything that exhibits ideal gas properties, even steam. It only has to be near static and not flowing at high velocity.

So, is this Hogan's Law, as yours appears to not respect the definition, thus reality!

Now you're trying to change your statement. You said that it was "usually dedicated to hot air," which is clearly wrong.

Anyone can Google Pascal's Law and see that it is "usually dedicated to liquids." It takes less than a minute to do so.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal's_law

Here's what your boys at NASA say: http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/K-12/WindTunnel/Activities/Pascals_principle.html

I didn't say that it did not apply to hot air. Guys like you that put words in the mouth of others and then couch it with insults are a waste of time. I've seen you do that since you joined the forum.

It's tempting to give you a larger dose of your own insulting language, but I'm gonna pass this time. Most forum members figured you out shortly after you started posting here.

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

Well Mr. Hogan,

I do think most knowledgable in science know that "fluid," as applied to Pascal's, means liquid or gas. Fluid doesn't mean just a liquid. This shows not even a modest scientic skill from you. Gases follow Pascal's better than heavy liquids.

I have taken note of both yours and BK's general attempts to pick something that usually gets caught and you all start whinning about getting caught. There is this need to control from several, but the science rules. I have seen excessive scientific illiteracy from several of you, that suggests that the reason this JFK issues can't get solved, in several areas, is that illiteracy.

However, I think your issue is that you don't like the two shots to the head because that then proves the Z-film is accurate and the autopsy data lines up. You always have an agenda, and it isn't based in science. imho

Most persons that know science well know that Pascal's is least applicable for liquids, because of their weight per unit volume is high. Which means, that due to gravity, any depth of water does not follow Pascal's too well, as the pressure is a function of depth. It works better with gases, but over the depth of the atmosphere it even fails to work accurately enough. Anyone with a balloon can see the effect as a balloon full of water is tear drop shaped due to the non-equal pressure with depth effect. But a balloon with air is round and it applies well for air, on a medium scale basis. Just a simple balloon analogy proves the point.

I think you might need to admit that you don't have good scientific expertise. Like your pal BK can't seem to associate the derogatory J-- term stuff as only originating from his own mind.

Plus, if you really did have a clue about science, you'd know that Pascal's doesh't even apply to dynamic systems with pressure wave effects in dominance. Pascal's only applies to static systems with no flow, particularly of liquids.

You have both feet in your mouth, at this point. All I do is point to the obvious, using science as the guide. And this is all very simple science, and you all can't even read the defintions. If my pointing this out to you clearly, as being wrong, you have no one else to blame other than yourselfs.

Edited June 3, 2011 by Jim Phelps

[Michael Hogan]

Sixty seconds with Google will show that your initial statement was wrong. Simple as that.

[Jim Phelps]

Sixty seconds with Google will show that your initial statement was wrong. Simple as that.

========

A nice balloon full of air vs water is very telling that you make poor associative logic. Me thinks you don't have a science back ground.

You clearly have invented "Hogan's Law," which departs from the accepted science.

===========

Besides, I think the sound of a Noble Prize winning Physicist's view of things leaves your opinion down in the noise of zero scientic literacy.

======

Citation:

The study of the assassination has drawn the attention of physicists at least since David S. Lifton’s Best Evidence (1980). As Lifton explains, he showed photos of Zapruder frames to Richard Feynman at CalTech in 1965, where the Nobel Prize laureate pointed out that there is forward movement from frames 312 to 313, which, when the back-and-to-the-left motion observed in the film is taken as proof of a shot from in front, implies that JFK was hit at least twice in the head—once from behind and once from in front—a double-hit that was meticulously diagrammed in Josiah Thompson’s Six Seconds in Dallas (1967).

======

Mr. Hogan's ramblings carry little scientic weight, and I'd hesitate to even mention the word science for his conjectures. It is more like a lot of hand waving, not science.

Edited June 3, 2011 by Jim Phelps

[Michael Hogan]

However, I think your issue is that you don't like the two shots to the head because that then proves the Z-film is accurate and the autopsy data lines up. You always have an agenda, and it isn't based in science. imho

The above has nothing to do with Pascal's law

I've been a member here for years and I've never made a post commenting on ballistics, shots, or Zapruder authenticity. Where the hell do you get your ideas from?

You arrive at false conclusions and couple it with a propensity to insult people. A bad combination and a losing one.

[Len Colby]

Sixty seconds with Google will show that your initial statement was wrong. Simple as that.

========

A nice balloon full of air vs water is very telling that you make poor associative logic. Me thinks you don't have a science back ground.

You clearly have invented "Hogan's Law," which departs from the accepted science.

===========

Besides, I think the sound of a Noble Prize winning Physicist's view of things leaves your opinion down in the noise of zero scientic literacy.

======

Citation:

The study of the assassination has drawn the attention of physicists at least since David S. Lifton’s Best Evidence (1980). As Lifton explains, he showed photos of Zapruder frames to Richard Feynman at CalTech in 1965, where the Nobel Prize laureate pointed out that there is forward movement from frames 312 to 313, which, when the back-and-to-the-left motion observed in the film is taken as proof of a s

hot from in front, implies that JFK was hit at least twice in the head—once from behind and once from in front—a double-hit that was meticulously diagrammed in Josiah Thompson’s Six Seconds in Dallas (1967).

======

Mr. Hogan's ramblings carry little scientic weight, and I'd hesitate to even mention the word science for his conjectures. It is more like a lot of hand waving, not science.

I don't remember ever agreeing with Hogan before but he challenged your statement that "Pascal's Law is a gas equation usually dedicated to hot air" which clearly was wrong, it applies to a fluids regardless of temperature. That's all he said, he is right you(like always)are wrong.

[Len Colby]

Where the hell do you get your ideas from?

From his tortured twisted imagination. If you do a Google you'll see claims to have invented all manner of things but this is not borne out by Google Books, News or Scholar searches, i.e. he is a legend in his own mind.

Edited June 3, 2011 by Len Colby

[Jim Phelps]

I didn't say that it did not apply to hot air.

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

Ah Yes, there we have it. Hogan admits Pascal does apply to "hot air." In his own words---Hogan admits Pascal applies to hot air, and perhaps that applying Pascal to the JFK head shot is purely "hot air"---aka "total nonsense".

Besides, the "hot air" comment was a pun directed at the silly associations of M with Pascal's, when it clearly doesn't apply for dynamic systems, not at rest. Yup, nonsense, not science.

Another one of your issues, is you can't even realize when a pun is being made about someone's silly assertions. Which is why I started laughing and ROFLOL.

Yes, Pascal's applies very well to hot air, which is a more perfect gas, and makes a suggestion about "hot air" coming from someone that evidently doesn't know simple science or algebra. Hot Air is a common phrase down South and we all know what it means. It is closely akin to "blowing smoke", causing distractions, trying to shift a topic, hide things.

That you can't grasp the "humor" speaks volumes. You intention was to dig, to distract, to make a fuss. And when it all is said and done, all you caused is distraction. All M has done is cause distraction, no real science. Lots of hand waving.

All the ballistics issues were covered at the very front of this thread and it was always there for anyone that took the time to familiaze themselves on the subject. Yet, via not reading the previous ground covered, it has to be gone over again. And we have wasted bandwidth, all manner of distraction, repetition from those not reading the previous that included the science and speaks of the wave nature of a bullet's pressure inducements on the head.

How about returning calm to this thread, get off your current mode, go elsewhere, cut out the distractions, bad science, go off and do your homework somewhere besides boring me to death with pseudo science. Find someone else to bug.

Edited June 3, 2011 by Jim Phelps

[Jim Phelps]

However, I think your issue is that you don't like the two shots to the head because that then proves the Z-film is accurate and the autopsy data lines up. You always have an agenda, and it isn't based in science. imho

The above has nothing to do with Pascal's law

I've been a member here for years and I've never made a post commenting on ballistics, shots, or Zapruder authenticity. Where the hell do you get your ideas from?

You arrive at false conclusions and couple it with a propensity to insult people. A bad combination and a losing one.

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

Well Mr. Hogan,

Isn't there a rule against Cuss words on the forum, since we have to set a proper example for children reading this list. I think you violated a list commandment.

I guess the question is why did you need to jump onto the Pascal issue, when anyone would know that it doesn't apply to the JFK pressure issues on the skull.

Maybe you need to go back to not commenting on ballistics, head shots, or Zapruder. And brush up on issues like humor applied to "hot air". Are you really so dense that you can't keep up with humor thrust into the commentary, or you just felt like being crabby?

Perhaps you should have not said anything at all. You certainly jumped right into the issue of Zapruder Validity with your comment on this thread, as that is the main emphasis of this Bob Harris Video. Thus, logiocally, since you commented in this area here, your previous history has little to do with your current venting. I am looking at what you did right here.

Pascal's has nothing to do with JFK, so why did you comment at all. That whole issue is off topic, by definitions.

Your logic is like a sausage meat that rejects the grinder.

Go bug someone else, because if you continue, I will put you on block / ignore. I don't appreciate folks that start cussing.

Let this area have peace, stop the distraction commentary. Go away and take Sg. M with you. You have said nothing of value per the subject of Bob Harris and the Bulge.

Edited June 3, 2011 by Jim Phelps

[Mike Williams]

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.

[Jim Phelps]

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.

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.

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.unitconversion.org/weight/grains-to-pounds-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.edu/jfk/scientific_topics/wound_ballistics/how_a_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.com/books?id=8Gq-rVVIbA4C&pg=PT652&lpg=PT652&dq=bullet+vaporization+fluids&source=bl&ots=sWQhD0Jhnd&sig=-wMxb_bNsHg1XSJspkWLG0mYplY&hl=en&ei=OizoTejXNsju0gGGieCjAQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CBYQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&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.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/445445/Pascals-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

Edited June 3, 2011 by Jim Phelps

[Jim Phelps]

Copied for reference:

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.

[Mike Williams]

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 Phelps]

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

Edited June 4, 2011 by Jim Phelps