Michael Hogan Posted April 3, 2012 Share Posted April 3, 2012 But regardless of what anyone thinks about the physics involved, Sibert and O'Neill's enequivical testimony to the ARRB that the photos in evidence do not represent the head or brain of JFK as they saw them at autopsy is certain evidence of conspiracy. I agree with you about Siberts testimony. No doubt strange things happened that night. This is an open wound. With due respect, it seems you (not GV) have not have had the opportunity to read In The Eye of History by William Matson Law. If you had read Sibert's account in full you would know he lays waste to Arlen Specter, Gerald Ford, and the single bullet theory. I actually had the opportunity in 1999 to meet James Sibert and speak to him one on one. He patiently, and I feel frankly answered my questions. He made no secret of his contempt for the official autopsy findings and I came away convinced he is an honest man. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Glenn Viklund Posted April 3, 2012 Share Posted April 3, 2012 Glennie: If you read my post, it was addressed to Paul. Last name is Baker. He is the guy who started this thread. You know, what he said was the stuff in front of JFK's head. Cavitation explains that. Its a common medical term. Milicent uses it. You obviously want to ignore that. For your own private reasons. Which also makes you want to ignore Carlos Hathcock. I did not look at your snippet. Its not what Paul's thread is about. If you want to debate that stuff, start a new thread. Gil Jesus has much to say about that subject. TRANSLATION: "I don't dare to challenge these punk's on this subject". Understandably so, Jimbo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Glenn Viklund Posted April 3, 2012 Share Posted April 3, 2012 (edited) Not at all, and you really now sound like Von Pein. I went ahead and answered each question by Baker who, like your hero Kevin G, seems to be gone. If you want to argue the backward motion in the Z film, please start a new thread. Don't freeload on this one. BTW, for the record, I did not even look at your post. That is what I think of your stuff. I mentioned Kevin Greenlee once, and now you are portraying him as "my hero"? You are running out of arguments, dear Jimbo. No answers still? Why, according to your logic's, is the North Vietnamese soldier, when getting slaugthered by a South Vietnamese General, not showing one scintilla of head movement? You answer that, dear Jimbo. Then we can start discussing this matter. OK? Edited April 3, 2012 by Glenn Viklund Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Josephs Posted April 3, 2012 Share Posted April 3, 2012 Okay Glenn... slowly this time and with feeling... One is shot with a pistol at point blank range - the hole with blood fountaining out did NOT fragment on impact, did NOT blow a hole out the back of his head, but DID enter his head in just about the same spot but in a different angle. The OTHER SHOT... was fired at less than 2000fps (please see bullet fragmentation chart), MAY have been a fragmenting bullet based on the trail of particles left in the head, and could have imparted much more force if expanding than the pistol shot BUT WELL MORE IMPORTANT IS THE FACT that JFK did not move nearly as much as you are making it out to be... The major movement was centered around his HEAD... since he was hit at the right, top, front we can at least agree that external stimuli to that part of the head would AT LEAST push his head up and back a bit.... JFK's head moves around the right shoulder... if the body FLEW BACK as you describe then the immediate motion would be in his entire torso... it is not... His head moves, his arms go limp, and he falls to the left after his head is pushed back.. the bottom frame in my graphic is the farthest point to the rear he goes... Very little motion at all compared to z312... Yes, the head moves its entire width... but the rest of his body does what we see in that film... it simple falls based on gravity and motion ala Newton. 3.Third law: The mutual forces of action and reaction between two bodies are equal, opposite and collinear. There is nothing we see in Z that contradicts this law, nor is there a HUGE backandtotheleft movement of his BODY... and Glenn... I asked a question of you - show us any other FMJ bullet doing the damage shown in the xray...leaving a trail of vapor and micro sized particles.. surely in all of history this is not the ONLY TIME it ever happened... you know, like the first time steel building(s) ever fell and disintegrated down due to fire... 3 times in the same day. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Glenn Viklund Posted April 3, 2012 Share Posted April 3, 2012 This is what Glennie just cut out of my post: After my last go round with you and your "Oswald is the equal of Hathcock" nuttiness, and "CE 399 could arrive at FBI HQ before it was picked up at the White House", and "Todd's initials not being on it is irrelevant", after all that McAdams-Von Pein crap, that is what I think of your stuff here. Not worth reading. As I said, for the above reasons, I don't read his stuff anymore. One of the worst things to encounter in this field is the endless number of trolls who come dressed in the guise of "objectivity". Then as they post more and more, one learns they are about as objective as John McAdams. This is the point I made in my last go round with you. And this is why I don't read your stuff anymore. You "dont read my stuff anymore"? HAHAHA, That's got to be sorriest excuse that I have ever seen, You never read anything I wrote or said, dear Jimbo. This time I (and Paul, first and foremost) caught you off hand?? :rolleyes: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Josephs Posted April 3, 2012 Share Posted April 3, 2012 Seems that Paul has got MIA... Paul... help us understand the extent of the movement YOU see... I see a very short distance in a very short timeperiod... Are you still saying that he was thrown BACK and to the LEFT in such a manner as to make it impossible in a real physcial world? Hi, I've just watched 3 Shots That Changed America. A superb film, for those who haven't seen it. A superb film for those who have seen it. It doesn't tow any particular line. In the second part, there is a clip of the first showing of the Zapruder film, on Goodnight America in 1975. We all know what happened to JFK following the headshot; he moved violently backwards, and to the left. Now, anyone who has no understanding of the basic laws of physics (possibly having watched too many films), will assume, as Robert Groden did on that broadcast, that this demonstrates a shot from the front (later in the film, Robert Groden repeated this fallacy during the HSCA meetings: 'Entirely consistent with a shot from the front,' he said). I wondered then if it was possible for everyone here to agree on one thing, that the movement of JFK following the headshot does not prove that he was shot from the front. Paul. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Glenn Viklund Posted April 3, 2012 Share Posted April 3, 2012 Fascinating. Simple question, stupid answers. It's a stupid question based on the assumption JFK was struck only once in the head. Given the reference to "apparent" pre-autopsy surgery to the head in the FBI report on the autopsy, I highly recommend that students new to the case avoid the subject of the head wound(s) entirely. It's the Mother of All Rabbit Holes. On the other hand Cliff, there is not much in the way of evidence you reference to, is there? I made reference to the FBI report on the autopsy. That doesn't qualify as evidence...why? Sorry Cliff, it might qualify, certainly. But my question remains - why does the head of the slaughtered Vietnamese not move - when executed? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Glenn Viklund Posted April 3, 2012 Share Posted April 3, 2012 Just a note. This is not about Jim DiEugenio, David Josephs, Paul, me or anyone else. It's about finding out what happened at Dealey Plaza that day. We can bitch about this and that, and win a few battles, but in the end it's all about getting answers. In my view, this discussion about the head shot is just another matter that needs to be resolved. And in my view I think that the question I brought forward today, need to be properly answered. //GV Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pat Speer Posted April 3, 2012 Share Posted April 3, 2012 The high contrast picture of Z313 which shows a cloud of blood and brain matter in front of Kennedy's head proves nothing either, I suppose. I'm not sure why I've been accused of trolling. This is a fair question, based on perfectly simple and well understood concept, yet most conspiracy theorists don't agree with it. No suprises there, but I do find that fascinating. It says a lot about the general mindset of those who tow the conspiracy line, that there are a majority who are prepared to dismiss a simple, unassailable truth. As far as they are concerned, the laws of physics don't apply to the assassination. So I wonder what the motivation is of someone who dismisses reality. I think in many cases this can be accounted for by plain ol' stupidity. But I would like to know, how does someone like DiEugenio work? He doesn't sound too deranged (execpt perhaps when he's laughing). Yet he's proved yet again (above) that he cannot address a fundamental question about a subject he claims to be an authority on. He and many others can't even tell when he's received an ass-whipping from McAdams on Black Op Radio! I still enjoy listening to him fail to answer John's final question. Of course, if we put DiEugenio in the limo in place of JFK, we wouldn't be having this debate, as his head would just deflate. The Z-film is a complete fabrication in any case. I wonder if the assassination happened at all. Perhaps it just exists in our collective imaginations. Follow the evidence, Paul, and not the spin. The high contrast picture of 313 shows one explosion of blood and brain. When there is but one explosion of blood and brain it is interpreted as backspatter or backsplash from the entrance location. In other words, the picture is evidence the fatal shot impacted at the supposed exit location, exactly where the witnesses thought it impacted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cliff Varnell Posted April 3, 2012 Share Posted April 3, 2012 On the other hand Cliff, there is not much in the way of evidence you reference to, is there? I made reference to the FBI report on the autopsy. That doesn't qualify as evidence...why? Sorry Cliff, it might qualify, certainly. "Might qualify"? On what basis might it NOT qualify? But my question remains - why does the head of the slaughtered Vietnamese not move - when executed? It's pretty obvious that it did, isn't it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Glenn Viklund Posted April 3, 2012 Share Posted April 3, 2012 (edited) On the other hand Cliff, there is not much in the way of evidence you reference to, is there? I made reference to the FBI report on the autopsy. That doesn't qualify as evidence...why? Sorry Cliff, it might qualify, certainly. "Might qualify"? On what basis might it NOT qualify? But my question remains - why does the head of the slaughtered Vietnamese not move - when executed? It's pretty obvious that it did, isn't it? Of course it does. I was busy and didn't really see your argument. I stand corrected, Cliff. Edit: Add - I'd better be prepared for the onslaught that will now follow, wouldn't you agree? Edited April 3, 2012 by Glenn Viklund Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pat Speer Posted April 3, 2012 Share Posted April 3, 2012 Just a note. This is not about Jim DiEugenio, David Josephs, Paul, me or anyone else. It's about finding out what happened at Dealey Plaza that day. We can bitch about this and that, and win a few battles, but in the end it's all about getting answers. In my view, this discussion about the head shot is just another matter that needs to be resolved. And in my view I think that the question I brought forward today, need to be properly answered. //GV Glenn, the movement of a head after being shot is related to how much of the bullet's energy is left in the head. A high-velocity bullet shooting straight through a head will impart very little energy to the head. The movement of the head will be negligible. A low velocity bullet, such as that fired from a handgun, would similarly cause very little movement. But a high-velocity bullet which fragments upon impact will impart far more energy to the head than normal, and cause far more movement than normal. I have concluded that the bullet struck Kennedy at the supposed exit, from behind, and that this led to a reaction much like the reaction one would have to being slapped on the top of the head--the chin flies down and bounces back, and the elastic recoil of the neck muscles leads him to fall backwards. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Josephs Posted April 3, 2012 Share Posted April 3, 2012 Glenn... then deal with this please. I am stating that his body did not move nearly as much as it was made out to be... and that his head moves an entire width for very good reason. He was not THROWN back and to the left... He was leaning left, shot in the right front, his head moves back as described below and the body falls... How is this inconsistent with a frontal shot (along with blood and gore that was sprayed back and left) and how is this CONSISTENT with a shot from the rear? You should also notice that there is no "back splatter" that propels the head anywhere... nor does the man fall INTO the shooter... but slightly away. Add some mushrooming and a slight explosion and your snippet would show the same thing as what happened to JFK DJ Okay Glenn... slowly this time and with feeling... One is shot with a pistol at point blank range - the hole with blood fountaining out did NOT fragment on impact, did NOT blow a hole out the back of his head, but DID enter his head in just about the same spot but in a different angle. The OTHER SHOT... was fired at less than 2000fps (please see bullet fragmentation chart), MAY have been a fragmenting bullet based on the trail of particles left in the head, and could have imparted much more force if expanding than the pistol shot BUT WELL MORE IMPORTANT IS THE FACT that JFK did not move nearly as much as you are making it out to be... The major movement was centered around his HEAD... since he was hit at the right, top, front we can at least agree that external stimuli to that part of the head would AT LEAST push his head up and back a bit.... JFK's head moves around the right shoulder... if the body FLEW BACK as you describe then the immediate motion would be in his entire torso... it is not... His head moves, his arms go limp, and he falls to the left after his head is pushed back.. the bottom frame in my graphic is the farthest point to the rear he goes... Very little motion at all compared to z312... Yes, the head moves its entire width... but the rest of his body does what we see in that film... it simple falls based on gravity and motion ala Newton. 3.Third law: The mutual forces of action and reaction between two bodies are equal, opposite and collinear. There is nothing we see in Z that contradicts this law, nor is there a HUGE backandtotheleft movement of his BODY... and Glenn... I asked a question of you - show us any other FMJ bullet doing the damage shown in the xray...leaving a trail of vapor and micro sized particles.. surely in all of history this is not the ONLY TIME it ever happened... you know, like the first time steel building(s) ever fell and disintegrated down due to fire... 3 times in the same day. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Josephs Posted April 4, 2012 Share Posted April 4, 2012 Just a note. This is not about Jim DiEugenio, David Josephs, Paul, me or anyone else. It's about finding out what happened at Dealey Plaza that day. We can bitch about this and that, and win a few battles, but in the end it's all about getting answers. In my view, this discussion about the head shot is just another matter that needs to be resolved. And in my view I think that the question I brought forward today, need to be properly answered. //GV Glenn, the movement of a head after being shot is related to how much of the bullet's energy is left in the head. A high-velocity bullet shooting straight through a head will impart very little energy to the head. The movement of the head will be negligible. A low velocity bullet, such as that fired from a handgun, would similarly cause very little movement. But a high-velocity bullet which fragments upon impact will impart far more energy to the head than normal, and cause far more movement than normal. I have concluded that the bullet struck Kennedy at the supposed exit, from behind, and that this led to a reaction much like the reaction one would have to being slapped on the top of the head--the chin flies down and bounces back, and the elastic recoil of the neck muscles leads him to fall backwards. Or, as explained by Newton's laws... his head moves forward as he is hit from the front... a slight move and EXACTLY what would be expected... until the bullet destroys all of the motor functions for the man and he essentially falls limp to his left... away from where the shot originated. That someone of your knowledge base and history would still talk about the headshot coming from the rear is simply amazing to me. If he was hit from behind he would have done exactly the opposite... slight move toward the bullet and then fall away from it... he does no such thing. And if Z was the ONLY evidence then I agree, a discussion is in order... but it is no where NEAR the only evidence for a frontal shot... When all toaken together... it is impossible to conclude that shot(s) were not fired from the right front. That we are even discussing it is a surprise Pat. If you of all people are going to argue against a frontal shot... is that what you're doing? DJ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Glenn Viklund Posted April 4, 2012 Share Posted April 4, 2012 (edited) This is what Glennie just cut out of my post: After my last go round with you and your "Oswald is the equal of Hathcock" nuttiness, and "CE 399 could arrive at FBI HQ before it was picked up at the White House", and "Todd's initials not being on it is irrelevant", after all that McAdams-Von Pein crap, that is what I think of your stuff here. Not worth reading. As I said, for the above reasons, I don't read his stuff anymore. One of the worst things to encounter in this field is the endless number of trolls who come dressed in the guise of "objectivity". Then as they post more and more, one learns they are about as objective as John McAdams. This is the point I made in my last go round with you. And this is why I don't read your stuff anymore. You "dont read my stuff anymore"? HAHAHA, That's got to be sorriest excuse that I have ever seen, You never read anything I wrote or said, dear Jimbo. This time I (and Paul, first and foremost) caught you off hand?? :rolleyes: REPEAT FOR EDIT I DON'T READ YOUR STUFF ANYMORE. OK. I PASSED BY YOUR POST ON THIS ONE. AND I ONLY REPLIED TO YOU SINCE YOU DIRECTLY CHALLENGED ME. PERIOD. Anyone who can dismiss the three things I mentioned in my previous go round with you: 1. Hathcock's testimony and attempt to do what Oswald did, which the greatest sniper of the Vietnam War could not do 2. The fact that Todd's initials are not on the bullet, which they have to be if its the one he delivered to the FBI from Rowley 3. The fact that Frazier had the "stretcher bullet" before Todd ever got the bullet Anyone who can ignore all of that, to me is not worth talking to. And you are not. So please leave me alone. Or at least take my advice, and open up a new thread on this issue you want to discuss so that GIl Jesus can attack it with exhibits that actually parallel the Kennedy case. From what I read here, from Josephs etc. your parallel is about as valid as the one with Paul Hoch and the ladder. You cannot, still answer the question I brought forward. EDIT - AND NOW I'M GONE LEAVE YOU ALONE? In Paul's and my thread - where I'm challenging you to answer? My god, Jimbo. You are even worse than I could have ever imagined. You are not - as I said the other day - looking for answers - you want to be right. EDIT EDIT - as you don't want to discuss the subject of this thread! You have no answers and now your usual, childish bullying starts. Once again. Get lost. Take a break, Jimbo. This world of yours is having you for breakfast. Edited April 4, 2012 by Pat Speer Abusive language Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now