David Von Pein Posted October 19, 2015 Share Posted October 19, 2015 (edited) 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. Jon, What makes you believe the autopsy photographs and X-rays are "fakes"? Edited October 19, 2015 by David Von Pein Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pat Speer Posted October 20, 2015 Share Posted October 20, 2015 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? Really? You fell for that? From chapter 16 at patspeer.com In a 2005 episode purportedly debunking that Kennedy was killed by anyone other than Oswald, the TV show Bullsh*t shot a melon to demonstrate that bullets enter small and exit big, and that Kennedy's wounds could easily be replicated. To show that there was no mystery to Kennedy's back-and-to-the-left movement following the head shot, moreover, they showed the melon falling backwards in slow motion after impact. They were bullsh*tting their audience, of course. (People seem to forget that the hosts of the show, Penn & Teller, are first and foremost magicians--illusionists.) That they performed multiple takes in order to perfect their trick is confirmed by the fact that in the long shot melon goo flies out and knocks a pink hat off another melon, but in the slow-motion shot that followed the hat never moves. From what I can gather, the trick works like this: 1) the bullet strikes the melon, imparting energy into the melon, and explodes from the far side of the melon; 2) a portion of this energy is projected downwards as the melon expands; 3) this causes the melon to recoil slightly from the table; 4) due to there now being far more melon missing by the exit than at the entrance of the bullet, however, the primary motion of the melon is to roll backwards and re-establish equilibrium; 5) the poorly secured table, recoiling from the expansion of the melon forwards, tilts back towards the shooter; 6) the melon rolls off the edge of the extremely small table. TA DA! If the table had been a larger table the melon would barely have moved. If the table had been solidly secured and had not tilted backwards the melon would barely have moved. If the melon had had a flat bottom it would barely have moved. Of course, there's also the fact that a melon isn't a skull. As the forward momentum created by a bullet's impact is in large part determined by the amount of energy expended while entering and exiting the object receiving the impact, and as a skull is many times more difficult to penetrate than a melon, it only makes sense that a skull would be the recipient of far more forward momentum than a melon. An online paper by mechanical engineer Tony Szamboti estimates that a human skull pierced by a bullet will receive 50-100 times the amount of energy and forward momentum as a melon pierced by a bullet. I suspect he's right. I mean, you can't exactly pierce a skull with a toothpick, can you? This simple fact, apparently overlooked by Nobel Prize-winning physicist Luis Alvarez in his own studies, helps explain why the skulls fired on by Alfred Olivier's team in 1964 moved in the direction of the bullet far better than team member Larry Sturdivan's subsequent guess that the gelatin was to blame. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Glenn Nall Posted October 20, 2015 Share Posted October 20, 2015 he says, "ok, let's do that" and then links to a premade video of something, which is, of course, NOT doing that. it's watching a video of someone else shooting something (i'm presuming, since it never even occurred to me to click that link). there are so many ballistic and integrity problems with those tests that only Lone Nut Theorists can refer to them and still sleep at night. I've blocked Mr Von Pein for quite some time now, and have enjoyed some intellectual neutrality and peace. How the hell is he back in MY posts??? David. Please stay the xxxx out of my posts, ok? I purposely avoid addressing you; the adult thing to do would be to reciprocate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Glenn Nall Posted October 20, 2015 Share Posted October 20, 2015 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? Really? You fell for that? From chapter 16 at patspeer.com In a 2005 episode purportedly debunking that Kennedy was killed by anyone other than Oswald, the TV show Bullsh*t shot a melon to demonstrate that bullets enter small and exit big, and that Kennedy's wounds could easily be replicated. To show that there was no mystery to Kennedy's back-and-to-the-left movement following the head shot, moreover, they showed the melon falling backwards in slow motion after impact. They were bullsh*tting their audience, of course. (People seem to forget that the hosts of the show, Penn & Teller, are first and foremost magicians--illusionists.) That they performed multiple takes in order to perfect their trick is confirmed by the fact that in the long shot melon goo flies out and knocks a pink hat off another melon, but in the slow-motion shot that followed the hat never moves. From what I can gather, the trick works like this: 1) the bullet strikes the melon, imparting energy into the melon, and explodes from the far side of the melon; 2) a portion of this energy is projected downwards as the melon expands; 3) this causes the melon to recoil slightly from the table; 4) due to there now being far more melon missing by the exit than at the entrance of the bullet, however, the primary motion of the melon is to roll backwards and re-establish equilibrium; 5) the poorly secured table, recoiling from the expansion of the melon forwards, tilts back towards the shooter; 6) the melon rolls off the edge of the extremely small table. TA DA! If the table had been a larger table the melon would barely have moved. If the table had been solidly secured and had not tilted backwards the melon would barely have moved. If the melon had had a flat bottom it would barely have moved. Of course, there's also the fact that a melon isn't a skull. As the forward momentum created by a bullet's impact is in large part determined by the amount of energy expended while entering and exiting the object receiving the impact, and as a skull is many times more difficult to penetrate than a melon, it only makes sense that a skull would be the recipient of far more forward momentum than a melon. An online paper by mechanical engineer Tony Szamboti estimates that a human skull pierced by a bullet will receive 50-100 times the amount of energy and forward momentum as a melon pierced by a bullet. I suspect he's right. I mean, you can't exactly pierce a skull with a toothpick, can you? This simple fact, apparently overlooked by Nobel Prize-winning physicist Luis Alvarez in his own studies, helps explain why the skulls fired on by Alfred Olivier's team in 1964 moved in the direction of the bullet far better than team member Larry Sturdivan's subsequent guess that the gelatin was to blame. not to mention that the melon is not attached to a 200 pound body influencing its motion a very great deal.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Glenn Nall Posted October 20, 2015 Share Posted October 20, 2015 the idea behind this "jet effect" is that the energy produced by the explosion and expulsion of skull and brain matter at the exit point of the missile is such that it overcomes the energy expended by the bullet itself as it FIRST HITS and then ENTERS the solid skullbone (as Pat described) and thereby propels the mans head TOWARD the source of the initial energy. This is not possible. The majority of the energy expended is at once spent at impact, and as resistance decreases (when the bullet enters tissue and bone fragments), so does the energy expenditure - and any "jet propulsion" that might occur at the other end can IN NO WAY equal the impact that bullet just created. it would take something of equal force and energy acting in reverse to the bullet in the back of the head to change the head's direction. like another bullet. can anyone smarter than an amoeba convince themselves that this kind of energy transference is even possible? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Von Pein Posted October 20, 2015 Share Posted October 20, 2015 (edited) The Penn & Teller melon literally *jumps* backward off of the table. Yes, the table is a small table, but the melon definitely moved toward the gunman. And if a "jet effect" didn't cause that movement, what did? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d7TbB4uxJEk Edited October 20, 2015 by David Von Pein Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Prudhomme Posted October 20, 2015 Share Posted October 20, 2015 Every deer I have ever shot in the head and observed a larger exit wound on the opposite side of the head has fallen away from me, not toward me. Also, with a large exit wound, there is never so much as one drop of blood seen coming back out of the entrance wound, as the large exit relieves ALL internal cranial pressure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pat Speer Posted October 20, 2015 Share Posted October 20, 2015 (edited) The Penn & Teller melon literally *jumps* backward off of the table. Yes, the table is a small table, but the melon definitely moved toward the gunman. And if a "jet effect" didn't cause that movement, what did? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d7TbB4uxJEk P.S. I love how Penn mentions the lab Alvarez worked for, and gives the impression Alvarez's experiments were scientific and conducted in a lab. As proved by Alvarez's own notes, he conducted his "experiments" in the woods with his family gathered round. There was no peer review. He basically kept shooting things until he finally found something (melon) which he could get to jump back (provided he used melons smaller than JFK's head and fired upon them with ammunition far more deadly and explosive than that purportedly fired upon Kennedy.) P.P.S. One of the pleasant surprises in McAdams' book was his skepticism regarding the jet effect. Edited October 20, 2015 by Pat Speer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Von Pein Posted October 20, 2015 Share Posted October 20, 2015 Yes, Pat. But the melon jumps off the table after being shot, moves BACKWARDS (toward the shooter), then (of course) falls off the table. But regardless of how small the table was, that hunk of fruit did move toward the gunman after it was struck with a Carcano rifle bullet. I see nothing phony or fraudulent about that melon test. Plus, Dr. Lattimer filmed his skull tests too. And the skulls were propelled TOWARD the gunman as well. (And, no, the ladder did not cause the skulls to move backward, as many CTers like to use as a convenient excuse. That ladder doesn't even *start* to tip backward until well *after* the skulls have started their journey to the rear.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pat Speer Posted October 20, 2015 Share Posted October 20, 2015 Yes, Pat. But the melon jumps off the table after being shot, moves BACKWARDS (toward the shooter), then (of course) falls off the table. But regardless of how small the table was, that hunk of fruit did move toward the gunman after it was struck with a Carcano rifle bullet. I see nothing phony or fraudulent about that melon test. Plus, Dr. Lattimer filmed his skull tests too. And the skulls were propelled TOWARD the gunman as well. (And, no, the ladder did not cause the skulls to move backward, as many CTers like to use as a convenient excuse. That ladder doesn't even *start* to tip backward until well *after* the skulls have started their journey to the rear.) You missed the point. The ladders tipped forwards. The forward momentum of the bullet slammed into the skulls, which then slammed into the ladders tipping them forward. The skulls then recoiled off the ladders and flew back toward the shooter. If the skulls were attached to the ladders they would have fallen forward not back. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Von Pein Posted October 20, 2015 Share Posted October 20, 2015 Absolute nonsense, Pat. Lattimer's test skulls were long gone off the ladder before there was any "recoil" (i.e., backward movement) of the ladder. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Prudhomme Posted October 20, 2015 Share Posted October 20, 2015 DVP You're like a Timex watch. No matter how much of a beating you take, and how many times people prove you are full of crap, you just keep coming back for more. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Von Pein Posted October 20, 2015 Share Posted October 20, 2015 Thanks, Bob. So nice to see you too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Prudhomme Posted October 20, 2015 Share Posted October 20, 2015 Tick tick tick....ad nauseum.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ramon F. Herrera Posted October 20, 2015 Author Share Posted October 20, 2015 (edited) The Penn & Teller melon literally *jumps* backward off of the table. Yes, the table is a small table, but the melon definitely moved toward the gunman. And if a "jet effect" didn't cause that movement, what did? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d7TbB4uxJEk Hi David: As I have told you in the past, I have a hard time figuring you out. You have made it clear that you are not a political person. You don't bother to vote, or seldom do. That leaves one possibility: you are a deeply religious person. Correct? You have stated in the past: "I just open it in any random page and find peace and solace in it" My reaction was: "What the heck? Is he talking about the Bible in a public forum?" Little did I know: You were referring to the Old Testament (Posner) or the New Testament (Bugliosi). Please, please, please ... dispel this doubt: You are a Bible Belt sort of fellow, aren't you? One of the reason I ask is because you have shown absolutely no respect for science, academia, university knowledge, etc. TIA -Ramon Edited October 20, 2015 by Ramon F. Herrera 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