Tink Thompson's Untrue Fact

[Martin Hinrichs]

Martin...

The third law of physics is well understood... the skull MUST move to resist the frontal shot... a shot from behind carries with it much more baggage...

Using the available evidence... please explain WHERE the shot entered the back of the head... WHERE it exited... HOW that trail of particles is left that high up...

and WHY doesn't this xray show the bone as seen in the photos from the same time?

A shot from the rear, from the 6th floor, exists his face... WHY do we not have a single Parkland witness say there is any damage to the face, front or top of the head and yet can have Boswell give us this

"approximation" showing virtually the entire skull missing?

Well, David. I'am aware of the Boswell drawings to the skull.

And i've read the witnessess saying their statements.

All what i did is to show the pictures from some frames.

Pictures who telling a true story. Unaltered in Raw output.

I have an idea what can happen to JFK's skull after 313 and what makes his head moved so sharp backwards.

Will see what i can do with the following frames or not.

Martin

[Craig Lamson]

Let's assume for a second that Tink is wrong and Craig and Martin are correct. Their arguments are certainly persuasive. The question is, does that prove that JFK was struck in the back of the head bewteen frames 312 and 313?

I have a couple of gifs for your consideration. These show that the other occupants of the limo all move rapidly and drastically forward and almost the same instant as President Kennedy and continue to do so after he is bowled backwards by the shot that exploded his temple.

Is it not likely that the same force which caused the other limo occupants to move forward also affected the President?

What about the women????

[Robert Prudhomme]

Let's assume for a second that Tink is wrong and Craig and Martin are correct. Their arguments are certainly persuasive. The question is, does that prove that JFK was struck in the back of the head bewteen frames 312 and 313?

I have a couple of gifs for your consideration. These show that the other occupants of the limo all move rapidly and drastically forward and almost the same instant as President Kennedy and continue to do so after he is bowled backwards by the shot that exploded his temple.

Is it not likely that the same force which caused the other limo occupants to move forward also affected the President?

Mr. Hay

I noticed that the last frame of your first gif has, by coincidence, stopped at the frame showing the bulge at the lower part of the back of JFK's head. This was believed, by many researchers, to be the second head shot entering from the front of JFK's head.

Of course, it can also be argued that we ae merely seeing the tip of Jackie's elbow protruding from behind JFK's head.

Mr. Lamson

If we follow this film for a few frames past the end of this gif, Nellie Connally's forward hunch does seem to become more pronounced, indicating that she is indeed reacting to the same rapid deceleration as her husband and the two Secret Service agents.

However, you are quite right in observing the fact that Jackie and JFK do not react to the same force as the other occupants. JFK, in particular, should be thrown forward easily as much, if not more, than the other occupants, as at this point he lacks the ability to brace himself.

[David Josephs]

So explain how a ball on a batting tee moves TOWARDS a bat that is striking it....

.

That you can't comprehend physics, old man, is no surprise... you can't grasp simple math

See if you can follow along MM,

The TOWARDS motion is for a millisecond as the bigger heavier BAT overcomes the force and moves the ball..

What happens when you try to hit that same ball on a tee with a feather? the ball overcomes the force of the feather and doesn't move...

In our real world example... when the bullet hits JFK in the right temple the skull resists yet is overcome by the force of the bullet and moves in the opposite direction... just like hitting the ball on a tee. The CAUSE of the forward movement is not a shot from behind... but a shot from the front. And then there's that little matter of the fraudulent physical evidence, as I posted... the xrays do not match the photos and for good reason... the photos were taken before they did anything to the head... the xrays, after.

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

When the bat hits the ball, it exerts some force on the ball. However, does this force account for the distance the ball travels?

Let's think about it. Just imagine a home run hitter like Babe Ruth hitting a stationary ball. How far do you think will it go? Will it go more than four hundred feet? Probably not. While the kinetic energy transferred from the bat to the ball accounts for some of the energy of the ball, it does not account for all. So where is this mysterious energy coming from?

The answer is conservation of momentum.

What is momentum? Momentum is a vector describing a "quantity of motion" or in mathematical terms p (momentum) = mass * velocity.

I just said that momentum is conserved (almost, read more to find out why) but how do I know that? I know that because of Newton's 2nd law: F=ma (Force equals mass times acceleration).

As was explained in the position page, acceleration is dv/dt, which is the change in the velocity (dv) divided by the change in time (dt). "Change in velocity?" you ask? Well, the change velocity (dv) is the difference between the current value and the last value of the velocity. For our purposes, we can say that dv=v_f-v_i, or, the change in velocity is equal to the final velocity minus the initial velocity. We also know that in a system with no external forces, the total force, F, is zero. This is because if you push against a wall, that wall pushes back against you with the same amount of force. So, assuming there are no external forces and plugging dv/dt for a into F=ma:

F = m dv/dt = 0

Multiply both sides by dt

m dv = 0

Now plug in v_f-v_i for dv

m v_f - m v_i = 0

the mass times the final velocity minus the mass times the initial velocity equals zero

From that last equation, it tells us that for the same change in time (dt), the difference between the final momentum and the initial momentum always remains the same.

Okay lets think about this more. Conservation of momentum means that harder you throw the harder the ball will bounce back at you. Just think about throwing a ball against a solid wall. The harder you throw the ball against the wall, the harder it bounces back. That is the reason it is easier to hit a home run on a fastball than on a curveball.

Conservation of momentum also means that the bat can transfer some of its momentum to the ball. This is why it can be better to use a heavier bat if you can swing it just as fast. The momentum is the product of the mass and the velocity, so a heavier bat swung with the same speed as a lighter bat will have more momentum.

Now, you may have noticed that I said momentum is "almost" conserved. Why isn't it if the equations say it should be? Well, momentum is always conserved in a closed system, but a baseball game in the real world is not a closed system. The bat and the ball are elastic materials. When the ball hits the bat, the ball will be squished to a certain degree. After few milli-seconds, it rebounds back. This contraction and rebound action is caused by the heat, or energy generated by friction, and some momentum is lost, or transferred elsewhere, in this action. There are also other factors that can use up energy, however, the concept of conservation of momentum is still relevant in predicting the range of a baseball.

Edited May 17, 2013 by David Josephs

[Craig Lamson]

So explain how a ball on a batting tee moves TOWARDS a bat that is striking it.....

That you can't comprehend physics, old man, is no surprise... you can't grasp simple math See if you can follow along MM, The TOWARDS motion is for a millisecond as the bigger heavier BAT overcomes the force and moves the ball..What happens when you try to hit that same ball on a tee with a feather? the ball overcomes the force of the feather and doesn't move... In our real world example... when the bullet hits JFK in the right temple the skull resists yet is overcome by the force of the bullet and moves in the opposite direction... just like hitting the ball on a tee. The CAUSE of the forward movement is not a shot from behind... but a shot from the front. And then there's that little matter of the fraudulent physical evidence, as I posted... the xrays do not match the photos and for good reason... the photos were taken before they did anything to the head... the xrays, after. ============When the bat hits the ball, it exerts some force on the ball. However, does this force account for the distance the ball travels? Let's think about it. Just imagine a home run hitter like Babe Ruth hitting a stationary ball. How far do you think will it go? Will it go more than four hundred feet? Probably not. While the kinetic energy transferred from the bat to the ball accounts for some of the energy of the ball, it does not account for all. So where is this mysterious energy coming from?The answer is conservation of momentum.What is momentum? Momentum is a vector describing a "quantity of motion" or in mathematical terms p (momentum) = mass * velocity.I just said that momentum is conserved (almost, read more to find out why) but how do I know that? I know that because of Newton's 2nd law: F=ma (Force equals mass times acceleration). As was explained in the position page, acceleration is dv/dt, which is the change in the velocity (dv) divided by the change in time (dt). "Change in velocity?" you ask? Well, the change velocity (dv) is the difference between the current value and the last value of the velocity. For our purposes, we can say that dv=v_f-v_i, or, the change in velocity is equal to the final velocity minus the initial velocity. We also know that in a system with no external forces, the total force, F, is zero. This is because if you push against a wall, that wall pushes back against you with the same amount of force. So, assuming there are no external forces and plugging dv/dt for a into F=ma: F = m dv/dt = 0Multiply both sides by dtm dv = 0Now plug in v_f-v_i for dvm v_f - m v_i = 0the mass times the final velocity minus the mass times the initial velocity equals zero From that last equation, it tells us that for the same change in time (dt), the difference between the final momentum and the initial momentum always remains the same.Okay lets think about this more. Conservation of momentum means that harder you throw the harder the ball will bounce back at you. Just think about throwing a ball against a solid wall. The harder you throw the ball against the wall, the harder it bounces back. That is the reason it is easier to hit a home run on a fastball than on a curveball.Conservation of momentum also means that the bat can transfer some of its momentum to the ball. This is why it can be better to use a heavier bat if you can swing it just as fast. The momentum is the product of the mass and the velocity, so a heavier bat swung with the same speed as a lighter bat will have more momentum. Now, you may have noticed that I said momentum is "almost" conserved. Why isn't it if the equations say it should be? Well, momentum is always conserved in a closed system, but a baseball game in the real world is not a closed system. The bat and the ball are elastic materials. When the ball hits the bat, the ball will be squished to a certain degree. After few milli-seconds, it rebounds back. This contraction and rebound action is caused by the heat, or energy generated by friction, and some momentum is lost, or transferred elsewhere, in this action. There are also other factors that can use up energy, however, the concept of conservation of momentum is still relevant in predicting the range of a baseball.

Nice try utter failure .

Pretty simple. Your claim your burden of proof. A simple video will do that shows an object like jfks head moving INCHES towards the striking force.

You can actually prove something for once...right? Oh wait, with your track record? Roflmao!

[Craig Lamson]

davie jo sez:

No... JFK's head does not move forward in the Zfilm we get to look at. The top/front of his head seems to be reacting into the gunshot as is expected via physics.

The third law of physics is well understood... the skull MUST move to resist the frontal shot...

OOPS!

davie jo sez:

That you can't comprehend physics, old man, is no surprise... you can't grasp simple math

Gotta love karma....

[B. A. Copeland]

I remember thinking (concerning the quick forward head movement, if its true at all) that witnesses did say they heard two shots in quick succession. Could it be that he was hit from the back and front (fatal (possible second) headshot) at nearly the same time, with the back headshot coming just before the frontal shot? Sigh.....the perps knew well to obliterate the autopsy proofs...bastards.

Edited May 17, 2013 by B. A. Copeland

[Craig Lamson]

Let's assume for a second that Tink is wrong and Craig and Martin are correct. Their arguments are certainly persuasive. The question is, does that prove that JFK was struck in the back of the head bewteen frames 312 and 313?

I have a couple of gifs for your consideration. These show that the other occupants of the limo all move rapidly and drastically forward and almost the same instant as President Kennedy and continue to do so after he is bowled backwards by the shot that exploded his temple.

Is it not likely that the same force which caused the other limo occupants to move forward also affected the President?

What about the women????

Well Jackie appears to kinda bob down and then quickly move back up/backward again. I'm thinking her movement has something to do with her holding on to her husband? Seems probable. And Nellie completely changes her position. She goes from facing her husband on her right to facing and leaning forward.

The point I was trying make is that not everyone might be moving forward based on the movement of the car. Its going to be very hard to separate regular body movements from any movement that might have been applied by the car movements. I would not even think about trying to make those guesses.

[Len Colby]

David, I have never used the Z-film to prove anything because I find the lack of debris exiting the avulsive wound in the right rear of the head as proof of alteration. 10 years ago Bill Miller on Lancer responded that the debris exited the back of Kennedy's head too fast for the camera to capture.

Please spell out any technical qualifications you have to have reached such a conclusion; Debra Conway's sister is a CT regarding the assassination and forensic expert specialising in blood splatter, she reached the same conclusion regarding a similar claim made by Costella. You do realize the Z-film was low resolution and only 18.3 FPS and that even the MC fired bullets at over 2000 ft/sec? Even if the debris ejected at 700 FPS (1/3 the speed of an MC bullet) it would have travelled over 30 ft between frames.

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=6162

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=7695

Funny-- Toni Foster in her 2000 interview with Debra Conway said the "spray went behind him." So Toni could see easily what the camera could not.

LOL witnesses are not reliable even when recalling events shortly after the fact, that is way forensic evidence trumps them not the other way round. Ms. Foster only came forward 33 years after the assassination and AFAIK it has yet to be confirmed she had really been in DP at the time. FWIW Poser previously interviewed “Francine Burrows” who claimed to have been the same woman seen in the Z-film. Foster's 'recollections' were 37 years old at the time. But it would not be the least bit surprising if what she claimed was true, as noted above “ the Z-film was low resolution and only 18.3 FPS” the human eye and brain are capable of much better than that especially at the distance she claimed to have been.

http://www.patspeer.com/chapter7%3Amorepiecesofthepuzzle

Therefore I argue nothing from the film. Yet you seem to take the film seriously. May I pose the question then to you: how do you account for the lack of debris exiting the back of Kennedy's head? ITEK confirmed there are no debris exiting the back of Kennedy's head in the extant film

I assume you have a citation handy.

[Robert Prudhomme]

Len Colby said:

"Please spell out any technical qualifications you have to have reached such a conclusion; Debra Conway's sister is a CT regarding the assassination and forensic expert specialising in blood splatter, she reached the same conclusion regarding a similar claim made by Costella. You do realize the Z-film was low resolution and only 18.3 FPS and that even the MC fired bullets at over 2000 ft/sec? Even if the debris ejected at 700 FPS (1/3 the speed of an MC bullet) it would have travelled over 30 ft between frames."

If what you say is true, don't you find it rather amazing that frame z313 of the Zapruder film not only seemed to capture ejected material going upwards from JFK's brain in mid-flight, it also seems to have captured the same piece of skull bone in several locations above JFK's head as it shot upwards?

Edited May 19, 2013 by Robert Prudhomme

[Pat Speer]

David, I have never used the Z-film to prove anything because I find the lack of debris exiting the avulsive wound in the right rear of the head as proof of alteration. 10 years ago Bill Miller on Lancer responded that the debris exited the back of Kennedy's head too fast for the camera to capture.

Please spell out any technical qualifications you have to have reached such a conclusion; Debra Conway's sister is a CT regarding the assassination and forensic expert specialising in blood splatter, she reached the same conclusion regarding a similar claim made by Costella. You do realize the Z-film was low resolution and only 18.3 FPS and that even the MC fired bullets at over 2000 ft/sec? Even if the debris ejected at 700 FPS (1/3 the speed of an MC bullet) it would have travelled over 30 ft between frames.

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=6162

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=7695

Funny-- Toni Foster in her 2000 interview with Debra Conway said the "spray went behind him." So Toni could see easily what the camera could not.

LOL witnesses are not reliable even when recalling events shortly after the fact, that is way forensic evidence trumps them not the other way round. Ms. Foster only came forward 33 years after the assassination and AFAIK it has yet to be confirmed she had really been in DP at the time. FWIW Poser previously interviewed “Francine Burrows” who claimed to have been the same woman seen in the Z-film. Foster's 'recollections' were 37 years old at the time. But it would not be the least bit surprising if what she claimed was true, as noted above “ the Z-film was low resolution and only 18.3 FPS” the human eye and brain are capable of much better than that especially at the distance she claimed to have been.

http://www.patspeer.com/chapter7%3Amorepiecesofthepuzzle

Therefore I argue nothing from the film. Yet you seem to take the film seriously. May I pose the question then to you: how do you account for the lack of debris exiting the back of Kennedy's head? ITEK confirmed there are no debris exiting the back of Kennedy's head in the extant film

I assume you have a citation handy.

It seems you're not familiar with the true importance of the observation "there was no blood spatter from the back of the head apparent in the Zapruder film."

1. This is not a CT observation. Itek Corporation was hired by CBS to study the film in the 1970's, and came to this conclusion. CBS then used this conclusion to refute the CT argument a bullet exploded from the back of Kennedy's head. This study was subsequently introduced into evidence by the HSCA, and cited repeatedly by Vincent Bugliosi in his LN monster Bible, Reclaiming History.

2. Sherry Fiester, Debra Conway's sister, and a professional blood spatter analyst, has in recent years come to a similar conclusion. This did not convince her that the Z-film was fake, as you seem to think, but that the fatal bullet impacted at the supposed exit--(The same same conclusion I came to from studying the x-rays and medical evidence.) Her 2012 book, The Enemy of the Truth, goes into this matter in detail, and demonstrates, quite clearly, that recent studies in blood spatter suggest that blood spatter would have been apparent at the back of the head in the Z-film, should Kennedy have actually been hit on the back of the head at Z-313. In other words, this isn't CT conjecture, it's SCIENCE.

3. When the Discovery Channel was preparing for its program Inside the Target Car, they asked LN Chad Zimmerman to suggest some tests, that could help clear up some issues of contention. He, in turn, asked the members of aaj to suggest some tests. I pushed that a re-enactment be conducted, and that this re-enactment be filmed by a camera like Zapruder's, using the kind of film used by Zapruder, from a similar distance....to see if blood spatter at the back of the head would be apparent. Zimmerman agreed this was a good idea. When the program was aired, of course, there was no mention of such a test. Apparently, one was never conducted. This demonstrated, at least to me, that the program was designed to argue against conspiracies, and not include any test that might lend substance to the possibility Kennedy was killed by more than one shooter. If so, they messed up. During one of the re-enactments, the shooter missed the back of the simulated head and hit it on its top, right side, where I believe the bullet killing Kennedy impacted. The resultant explosion was quite similar to the explosion of Kennedy's head at 313, while the explosions of the skull from a bullet hitting in the "correct" location at the back of the head in the cowlick area, were not remotely similar. This "missed shot" was, not surprisingly, never shown in the program. But it was put up online. And for that we can be grateful.

Edited May 19, 2013 by Pat Speer

[Craig Lamson]

Actually it appears there is plenty of ejecta from the back of his head in 313....

[Robert Prudhomme]

Actually it appears there is plenty of ejecta from the back of his head in 313....

I don't see what you are pointing out, Craig. Could you be more specific?

[Craig Lamson]

Actually it appears there is plenty of ejecta from the back of his head in 313....

I don't see what you are pointing out, Craig. Could you be more specific?

Why am I not surprised...

How about all the red at the back his head and the read behind his head over the grass.....

[Robert Prudhomme]

I was going to say that you were looking at the arm of Jackie's pink suit but, I see you are pointing out something a bit higher. I really can't say for sure if that is red or not.

I don't suppose you consider this evidence of a rear exit wound, do you?