Jump to content
The Education Forum

John Lattimer: "I wish to reemphasize that none of our test objects in these experiments ever jumped or fell off the stand AWAY from the shooter"


Recommended Posts

"I wish to re-emphasize that none of our test objects in these experiments with melons and skulls ever jumped or fell off the stand AWAY from the shooter." -- J.K. Lattimer

Lattimer-Lives-in-Bizarro-World.png

 

Let's verify this with actual shots to human heads, shall we?

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

Sniper Shot Barret M107

4:15"

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

Real Sniper Shot - Better than American Sniper


1:10"

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

Young Iraqi shot by sniper ISIS - Graphics

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ekzXxjfobAE
0:35"

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

FSA Rebel Killed By SAA Sniper


1:00"

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

FSA Soldier takes a clean headshot Bullet penetrate and hits another one


0:20"

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

Sniper Rifle Ballistic Test! | Zombie Go Boom

0:20"

Edited by Ramon F. Herrera
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 100
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

"Our experiments verified that the backward movement of the President's head was compatible with his being struck from the rear, and that it was certainly not necessary to hit the head from the front in order to make the head move toward the gun." -- John K. Lattimer; Page 255 of "Kennedy And Lincoln" (c.1980)

Kennedy-And-Lincoln.blogspot.com

Edited by David Von Pein
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What I posted above is ALL the shootings to heads of people that I could find in YouTube. In every single one of them, the subjects behave as predicted by elementary physics (conservation of momentum).

If anybody can find ONE video that violates that elementary rule, please post it here.

We will be patiently waiting.

-Ramon

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is a very interesting maxim, one that almost reaches the level of truism:

"The more excuses the person provides, the higher chances s/he is lying".

Count the number of excuses in the Posner book below....

The-Miraculous-Bullet.png

Note: "Dr. Luis Alvarez, a Nobel Prize-winning physicist who worked for the military-industrial complex [...]".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luis_Walter_Alvarez

Edited by Ramon F. Herrera
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So God has a special rule for Kennedy (perhaps for Catholics?) and the opposite for criminals and Muslims?

Exactly. :)

Let's see you debunk the photos and X-rays, which prove that nobody in Dealey Plaza hit John F. Kennedy in the front of the head with a bullet. Good luck, RFH. ....

JFK-Autopsy-Xray-And-Photograph-Side-By-

Edited by David Von Pein
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What I posted above is ALL the shootings to heads of people that I could find in YouTube. In every single one of them, the subjects behave as predicted by elementary physics (conservation of momentum).

If anybody can find ONE video that violates that elementary rule, please post it here.

We will be patiently waiting.

-Ramon

not we. you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From patspeer.com, chapter 16:

In 1978, Mrs. John Nichols, the wife of forensic pathologist Dr. John Nichols, who'd recently passed on, delivered the results of her husband's most recent shooting simulations, in which Mannlicher-Carcano ammunition was fired upon melons and cadaver specimens. (This paper can be found on the Baylor University website.) Nichols concluded: "This study did not demonstrate the jet effect and would lead us to reject the jet effect as the basis for President Kennedy’s backward head movement." It detailed, moreover, that, among other things: 1) "All target movement was in the direction of bullet flight path"; 2) melons fired upon while sitting on a stand exhibited "bullet entry and exit spray," but did not move upon impact; and 3) "Movement of all cadaver specimens was away from gun."

And that wasn't all those peddling the jet-effect have over-looked. In 1996, Stanford Physicist Art Snyder and his wife Margaret attended the JFK Lancer Conference in Dallas and played some films in which watermelons had been fired upon. Some of these tests had been conducted by Dr. Doug DeSalles in 1994. In any event, these films, subsequently discussed in a 1998 article by the Snyders in Skeptic Magazine, and a Fall 1999 article by DeSalles in the Kennedy Assassination Chronicles, demonstrated an important point missed (or ignored) by Alvarez. While melons did indeed fly back toward the rifle when fired upon by 30.06 rifles firing soft-nosed ammunition (as claimed by Alvarez), they failed to do so when fired upon by Mannlicher-Carcano rifles firing full-metal jacket ammunition. This suggested that the "Jet Effect" identified by Alvarez, and used by single-assassin theorists everywhere to support that Kennedy's back-and-to-the-left motion after being struck suggested the shot came from behind, was directly related to the break-up of the bullet within the melon. As subsequently explained by Szamboti, the break-up of the transiting bullet creates a large temporary cavity expanding in all directions from the bullet. As the bullet exits the melon in pieces, it leaves a large hole, and the forward pressure is released. This, then, leaves the backward pressure pushing against a relatively intact back of the melon, and BINGO, it flies backward.

Thus, Kennedy's back-and-to-the-left movement can be explained by the "jet effect", provided the skull was as soft as a melon-rind, and the bullet broke up within the skull. For only through both circumstances could a tremendous amount of pressure push against the back of the skull without being offset by the forward movement of the skull upon impact.

Now, let's pause for a second. If that's all there is to it--that the "jet effect" studied by Alvarez and endorsed by the HSCA as an explanation for the movement of Kennedy's head after the head shot was achieved through a unique combination of factors--that were not present in the Kennedy assassination--shouldn't Alvarez, a Nobel prize-winning physicist, have been smart enough to figure this out? Well, yeah, I would hope so.

He was. On 10-17-13, at the Passing the Torch Conference in Pittsburgh, Josiah Thompson revealed that, with the begrudging assistance of Paul Hoch, a one-time student of Alvarez', he had recently gained access to Dr. Alvarez's notes on his melon studies. Well, get ready for a shock. According to Thompson, Alvarez performed two series of tests before he was able to get the melon to fly back toward the bullet as demonstrated in his film. On 6-29-69, using all-lead 30.06 hand-loaded bullets designed to travel 3,000 fps (that is, far more powerful and explosive bullets than those used in the assassination), he fired on: tape-wrapped 4-7 lb. melons, which rolled backward; jello-filled coconuts, which flew forward; a jello-filled plastic jug, which flew forward; an 11-pound watermelon, for which the notes are unclear, and a water-fllled plastic jug, which flew forward. This was unsatisfactory. He then returned to the field on 2-15-70 and fired on: gelatin-filled rubber balls, which flew forward; water-filled plastic bottles, which exploded; and a taped pineapple, which shattered mostly to the side. This was also unsatisfactory. On 5-31-70, Alvarez came back a third time; this time, he fired on tape-wrapped 1.1-3.5 lb. melons (most of which were much smaller than the human head), and received the results he desired.

That Dr. Luis Alvarez not only cooked his data, but was deliberately deceptive about it, moreover, was demonstrated by Dr. Gary Aguilar at the AARC Conference the next year. In the aftermath of Thompson's revelation that Alvarez fired upon multiple items before settling on the melons he would later discuss, Aguilar went back and read Alvarez's original article on his melon tests. This was published in the September, 1976 issue of the American Journal of Physics. In the article, Alvarez claimed: "It is important to stress that a taped melon was our a prior best mock-up of a head, and it showed retrograde recoil in the first test. If we had used the 'Edison Test" and shot at a large collection of objects, and finally found one which gave retrograde recoil, then our firing experiments could be reasonably criticized. But as the tests were actually conducted, I believe they show it is most probable that the shot in 313 came from behind the car."

Well, this, as we've seen, was deceptive. Sure, Alvarez first fired upon melons, but the results were unsatisfactory, and he fired upon numerous other items before firing upon much smaller melons. His descriptions of his melon tests hide this fact. So, yes, Alvarez, a Nobel prize-winning physicist, lied to his colleagues in the American Journal of Physics.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So God has a special rule for Kennedy (perhaps for Catholics?) and the opposite for criminals and Muslims?

Exactly. :)

Let's see you debunk the photos and X-rays, which prove that nobody in Dealey Plaza hit John F. Kennedy in the back of the head with a bullet. Good luck, RFH. ....

JFK-Autopsy-Xray-And-Photograph-Side-By-

Are you really claiming the x-rays and autopsy photos prove that nobody hit JFK in the back of the head? Did you slip up? Or are we officially through the looking glass?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Are you really claiming the x-rays and autopsy photos prove that nobody hit JFK in the back of the head? Did you slip up? Or are we officially through the looking glass?

Oops! I made a boo-boo, didn't I? So sorry.

Previous post edited.....to this:

"Let's see you debunk the photos and X-rays, which prove that nobody in Dealey Plaza hit John F. Kennedy in the front of the head with a bullet."

Edited by David Von Pein
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Now, let's pause for a second. If that's all there is to it--that the "jet effect" studied by Alvarez and endorsed by the HSCA as an explanation for the movement of Kennedy's head after the head shot was achieved through a unique combination of factors--that were not present in the Kennedy assassination--shouldn't Alvarez, a Nobel prize-winning physicist, have been smart enough to figure this out? Well, yeah, I would hope so.

Pat:

We can envision Luis Alvarez. After sweating bullets (intended) he was finally able to make some melons recoil. Some HSCA staff (behind Robert Blakey's back, obviously) comes dragging a large package.

Luis Alvarez: "What is that?"

HSCA: "Oh, a cadaver. Now you must drag it with your melon (or the cadaver's own head). Don't worry! Any minor movement will give you credit - Shall we say 3-5 inches? But it has to be real fast!":

Luis Alvarez: "Let me guess: You want the cadaver sitting upright?"

HSCA: "We are not that cruel. Laying horizontally is fine."

Luis Alvarez (exasperated, between his teeth): "Anything else?"

HSCA: "Yes. We saved the best for last. Instead of shooting at the center, your bullet trajectory must be tangential and leave a large gaping wound".:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dKC_zBA50HA&feature=youtu.be

Alvarez: "But that will destroy my jet effect!! The Jet Effect is my case!!!"

Judge to Garrison: "If that was your case, you do not have a case".

Alvarez kept on sweating profusely, mumbling "If I can pull this off, it is worth 3 Nobels!!!"

Edited by Ramon F. Herrera
Link to comment
Share on other sites

the Jet Effect. really?

is this proposition really worth the time it's given? is it coincidental that people who have actually shot things with bullets are the ones who know better, and the ones who haven't are the ones questioning its validity?

this Jet Effect is a sham. go shoot something, even something attached to something else, with a high velocity bullet. then let's talk about this jet effect.

effin' please.

few of you in here seem to have any respect for my opinions, but they are nevertheless valid: it seems to me that an awful lot of time is spent trying to solve unsolvable riddles that would resolve nothing in any case,

If I want to find out who orchestrated a coup in Dallas in 1963, and I had proof that there were four gunshots that day, or that one trajectory originated from the Dal-Tex bldg, where would that get me? it would prove to me what i already knew.

if suddenly proof were available that an entrance wound existed above JFK's right eye, where does that get us?

it tells us what we already know. there were more than three gunshots, and that the Govt at the Bethesda level are liars.

xxxx, my dog Strider knows that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

DVP,

I'm glad you post that x-ray and that photo so often. Each time you do hammers home for me what fakes they are. I say this not to change your mind or prove you wrong. Only to establish that your method of argument...wait a second! You're not trying to change my mind. Your whole presentation here is for the silent lurker; the undecided lurker; the lurker who wants the truth if it isn't too messy, too ugly, too unacceptable; the lurker who is too shy to post here.

To all lurkers: jump in. This pond is for everyone. Share your thinking.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This Jet Effect is a sham. Go shoot something, even something attached to something else, with a high velocity bullet. Then let's talk about this jet effect.

OK, let's do that....

jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2012/01/debunking-jfk-conspiracy-myths.html

Another "fake" video, Glenn?

Edited by David Von Pein
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...