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"

[Ramon F. Herrera]

"Who would have imagined in high school that I would be the one getting all the diplomas"

- One of Carla Tortelli's classmates, bragging about her "education" in electrolysis, hair removal and bleaching, nail painting, etc.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0539881/

http://www.springfieldspringfield.co.uk/view_episode_scripts.php?tv-show=cheers&episode=s03e24

Rumor has it that Mr. Von Pein was in awe.

Edited October 20, 2015 by Ramon F. Herrera

[Glenn Nall]

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

may i say, Ramon, it's not that DVP has no respect for science, higher education, etc, it's that he lacks a means of grasping it - its logic evades him, and he's boldly unaware of the simplicities of binary, conditional thinking (which is a natural to most people).

and fyi, i am one of those Bible Belt fellows, and have become so because of my respect for science and logic and historical research. Please do not assume that all us christian kinds are of the blind-faith blast science to hell types. There are some exponentially brilliant scientists who happen to believe the christian faith, in its entirety.

i have no affection for DVP, but why should he not be allowed to mention the Bible in a public forum? and please don't say that it's not "on topic." that would be almost as funny as Penn and Teller attempting to pass off a serious research project using guns and honey-dew melons.

almost, but not quite.

but for the record, I AM with you - i blocked him a long time ago, along with some others who have or have not maintained said filter, strictly because his utter illogic and malicious rants were about to make me buy a ticket to Indiana, and NOT for their Kentucky Fried Chicken. He remains blocked from my account, and i enjoy this forum so much more. [i had also tried to block one G. Parker, finally, but could not remember how to - he has been noticeably absent from some threads of late, so i've seen a calm to the forums - not a Peace, but a calm... ]

Edited October 20, 2015 by Glenn Nall

[Pat Speer]

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.

Let's try this again. The bullet never touches the ladders, and yet they tip forward. This proves that the forward momentum of the skull is being transferred into the ladders.

Think of it like shooting pool. The cue ball is the bullet. The cue ball strikes the 13 ball at an angle when it's an inch or so away from the 8 ball. The 13 ball then strikes the 8 ball. Upon striking the 8 ball, the 13 ball rolls backwards, but the 8 ball rolls forwards. Lattimer claimed that the backwards motion of the 13 ball replicated the movement of Kennedy, and proved the Jet Effect, but totally ignored that it had transferred its momentum into the 8 ball. It was a trick.

P.S. As pointed out by others in this thread, my pool analogy doesn't hold. I was thinking of cue balls with English rolling backwards after striking another ball. No, a better analogy is of a ball with elasticity, such as a rubber ball. If you roll a rubber ball in the direction of two equally-sized rubber balls, it will bounce back towards you upon striking the first of the two balls, and that ball will bounce back towards you upon striking the third ball. Upon impact with the third ball, this second ball will briefly compress and then spring back. The same will happen with a human skull. If you shoot it while it sits on a ladder, it will transfer its forward momentum into the ladder. It will also briefly expand in all directions, including downwards. As it regains its form, it will pop off the ladder back toward the shooter. So, yes. Lattimer's skull trick works. But it has nothing to do with the Jet Effect.

Edited October 22, 2015 by Pat Speer

[Glenn Nall]

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.

Let's try this again. The bullet never touches the ladders, and yet they tip forward. This proves that the forward momentum of the skull is being transferred into the ladders.

Think of it like shooting pool. The cue ball is the bullet. The cue ball strikes the 13 ball at an angle when it's an inch or so away from the 8 ball. The 13 ball then strikes the 8 ball. Upon striking the 8 ball, the 13 ball rolls backwards, but the 8 ball rolls forwards. Lattimer claimed that the backwards motion of the 13 ball replicated the movement of Kennedy, and proved the Jet Effect, but totally ignored that it had transferred its momentum into the 8 ball. It was a trick.

I'm sorry Pat but i have to disagree with this analogy of basic physics. I've been a "real" pool player for many years, and have lost loads of money to prove it - but i'm glad to say I lost my money to some recognized pool players.

.

In that scenario (assuming the lack of english), the 13 will NOT roll backwards, it will veer in the directly proportionate angle opposite the direction the energy transferred to the 8 rolls the 8, (as well as the value of energy spent).

Just like those silly desk contraptions consisting of steel balls hanging from strings from a frame, when you drop Ball #1, the effect is that Ball #6 collects the energy, and it's an absolute transferral of energy. Aside from outside stimuli (there is always external stimuli) Balls 2 thru 5 sustain no effect of energy whatsoever.

the same thing happens when one pool ball strikes another - excusing the geometric parts of it all, the energy transference is nearly perfect.

The ONLY reason a cue ball, or any pool ball, would reverse its course in the face of physics is if it were given extraneous influence. Straight bottom english would accomplish this - left and right english on the cue ball can be transferred to the object ball to a degree, but not purely.

But straight top english will be very difficult to transfer a reversed backspin on the object ball. the 13 will veer, or most likely, from the distance of just an inch, like those silver balls, stop dead, transferring its entire energy to the 8 (if hit straight on, assumably). But it won't reverse course.

my real concern is why you're shooting at the 8 ball using the 13, which will forfeit the victory if the 8 were made.

maybe we're playing 9 ball. now that makes sense.

so, as i've not had the nerve to watch these inane videos, i have no idea how a supporting platform that is not attached to the target would move at all. i will watch the videos. if they're the ones with Penn and Teller (anyone seen their first movie, My Chauffeur?) i'll have no faith whatsoever in the published results. I'll even suspect that the ladders are rigged.

I know what, Let's get David Blaine to conduct some research. not THAT outcome would be of interest.

[Robert Prudhomme]

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.

Let's try this again. The bullet never touches the ladders, and yet they tip forward. This proves that the forward momentum of the skull is being transferred into the ladders.

Think of it like shooting pool. The cue ball is the bullet. The cue ball strikes the 13 ball at an angle when it's an inch or so away from the 8 ball. The 13 ball then strikes the 8 ball. Upon striking the 8 ball, the 13 ball rolls backwards, but the 8 ball rolls forwards. Lattimer claimed that the backwards motion of the 13 ball replicated the movement of Kennedy, and proved the Jet Effect, but totally ignored that it had transferred its momentum into the 8 ball. It was a trick.

I have to agree with you on this one, Pat. I never noticed the ladder moving in the opposite direction until you pointed it out. These connivers will do anything to perpetuate the lone nut myth.

[Ramon F. Herrera]

I have to agree with you on this one, Pat. I never noticed the ladder moving in the opposite direction until you pointed it out. These connivers will do anything to perpetuate the lone nut myth.

Bob:

I have come up with yet another example to help readers understand, from the point of view of elementary Physics. See this image:

The golden bullet denotes the actual direction of the projectile and the red vector denotes the task that we are given: it is the net movement of the subject, after all forces have been accounted for (i.e. the vacuum described by Pat, gravity, air resistance, etc.). Vectors have a direction (angle) and a magnitude. Those who want to achieve Case No. 3 have two challenging sub-tasks:

(1) Reverse the angle by 180 degrees. That is the easy part.

(2) Have a strong momentum (long red arrow): no way on earth this is achievable.

When I was a kid, we had a school break, national holidays, called "Carnivals": there were beauty queens being elected, people wore costumes, dances, etc. In the US it is known as Mardi Grass.

The practice that degenerated along the years was throwing water balloons. Let me put it this way: it started with confetti, then liquid water, next frozen water and people ended up shooting each other. The last time I did this, we were still learning how to drive, went around neighborhoods and every time we spotted a target -preferably a girl- we unloaded our arsenal.

Note: This time, the car is the bullet.

In one of those sorties, we spotted a group of older students chatting across the local university. My older brother was driving, I was in the passenger seat. I am right-handed. The car must have been going about 30-40 mph and I made a perfect pitch, hitting one of the students in his rear bottom. I was surprised at the impact (it is a good thing he had an ample derriere to absorb the hit). Obviously, the speed of the car was ADDED to that provided by my arm. That was a clear Case 1.

If we want to achieve Case 3, we must do the throw AFTER the student is passed. The car is moving north, while the balloon goes south. The speed of the car is SUBTRACTED from that of the swinging arm.

Again: No way this is possible. Not to the extent required.

ps: Jet Effect for Dummies

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=22353

Edited October 22, 2015 by Ramon F. Herrera

[David Von Pein]

Like Glenn Nall, I'm a fairly decent pool player myself, and as far as I am aware, the only way to get a pool ball to move backwards (toward the pool player) is to utilize reverse english while striking the cue ball (which is something I became pretty good at doing in my younger days). The cue ball will then travel backwards (or a little left or right, depending on where the player strikes the cue ball).

But the OBJECT ball(s)--i.e., the balls the cue ball is hitting--will not travel backwards. Those balls always travel forward--away from the shooter/billiards player.

But, maybe Pat Speer thinks that John Lattimer had a special kind of Mannlicher-Carcano rifle---one that fired bullets with reverse english attached to them.

However, even if that scenario were possible, it's still not a good "pool" analogy. Because, as mentioned, from my experience as a pool player, it's only the CUE BALL--or in Pat's analogy, THE BULLET ITSELF--that would be subject to any REVERSAL of direction--not the "13 ball" or any of the "object" balls (or in Dr. Lattimer's experiments--the skulls).

What I'd really like to know is if Dr. Alfred Olivier's test skulls that he shot for his assassination tests at Edgewood Arsenal moved TOWARD the shooter after the skulls were shot with rifle bullets. I don't think that information ever came out in Olivier's Warren Commission testimony, mainly because the Commission wasn't concerned a single bit about the rear head snap exhibited by President Kennedy after he was shot. It was a complete non-issue to the Warren Commission (since they had conclusive proof via the autopsy report and the autopsy doctors that JFK had been hit in the head by just a single bullet, which entered from BEHIND). But it would still be nice to know which direction Dr. Olivier's test skulls traveled--forward or backward.

Edited October 21, 2015 by David Von Pein

[Glenn Nall]

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.

Let's try this again. The bullet never touches the ladders, and yet they tip forward. This proves that the forward momentum of the skull is being transferred into the ladders.

Think of it like shooting pool. The cue ball is the bullet. The cue ball strikes the 13 ball at an angle when it's an inch or so away from the 8 ball. The 13 ball then strikes the 8 ball. Upon striking the 8 ball, the 13 ball rolls backwards, but the 8 ball rolls forwards. Lattimer claimed that the backwards motion of the 13 ball replicated the movement of Kennedy, and proved the Jet Effect, but totally ignored that it had transferred its momentum into the 8 ball. It was a trick.

I have to agree with you on this one, Pat. I never noticed the ladder moving in the opposite direction until you pointed it out. These connivers will do anything to perpetuate the lone nut myth.

I would be humbly delighted for someone to show me one instance of an object pool ball striking a second object ball and reversing direction.

[David Von Pein]

I would be humbly delighted for someone to show me one instance of an object pool ball striking a second object ball and reversing direction.

I would love to see that too, because from my experience as a billiards players, I don't think it's possible.

Edited October 21, 2015 by David Von Pein

[Glenn Nall]

I have to agree with you on this one, Pat. I never noticed the ladder moving in the opposite direction until you pointed it out. These connivers will do anything to perpetuate the lone nut myth.

Bob:

I have come up with yet another example to help readers understand, from the point of view of elementary Physics. See this image:

The golden bullet denotes the actual direction of the projectile and the red vector denotes the task that we are given: it is the net movement of the subject, after all forces have been accounted for (see the vacuum described by Pat, gravity, air resistance, etc.). Those who want to achieve Case No. 3 have two challenging sub-tasks:

(1) Reverse the angle by 180 degrees. That is the easy part.

(2) Have a strong momentum (long red arrow): no way on earth this is achievable.

When I was a kid, we had a school break, national holidays, called "Carnivals": there were beauty queens being elected, people wore costumes, dances, etc. In the US it is known as Mardi Grass.

The practice that degenerated along the years was throwing water balloons. Let me put it this way: it started with confetti, then liquid water, next frozen water and people ended up shooting each other. The last time I did this, we were still learning how to drive, went around neighborhoods and every time we spotted a target -preferably a girl- we unloaded our arsenal.

Note: This time, the car is the bullet.

In one of those sorties, we spotted a group of older students chatting across the local university. My older brother was driving, I was in the passenger seat. I am right-handed. The car must have been going about 20-30 mph and I made a perfect pitch, hitting one of the students in his rear bottom. I was surprised at the impact (it is a good thing he had an ample derriere to absorb the hit). Obviously, the speed of the car was ADDED to that provided by my arm. That was a clear Case 1.

If we want to achieve Case 3, we must do the throw AFTER the student is passed. The speed of the car is SUBTRACTED from that of the swinging arm.

Again: No way this is possible. Not to the extent required.

ps: Jet Effect for Dummies

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=22353

Jet propulsion requires thrust.

from where is this thrust coming?

[David Von Pein]

Prediction: Pat Speer will now change his "pool" analogy to this....

The bullet (in Dr. Lattimer's tests) becomes the cue stick.

The skull on the ladder becomes the cue ball.

And the ladder becomes the object ball which is being struck by the cue ball (skull).

But that's still a bit of a stretch for the conspiracy theorists, unless they can invent a way for the cue stick (the bullet) to impart reverse english onto the cue ball (the skull).

Let's chalk up and play a game or two.

Edited October 21, 2015 by David Von Pein

[Jon G. Tidd]

A Brief Lesson in Newtonian Physics

Newton's First Law: A body changes its state of motion only if acted upon by a force. It's clear from the (faked) Z-film that JFK's head was acted upon by some force or forces. A Newtonian analysis involves determining the net force (magnitude along the three spacial directions) and the head's center of gravity. All complex, requiring a knowledge of physics and anatomy. But bottom line: some force or forces acted upon JFK's skull beginning at Z-313, if one believes the Z-film is for real.

Newton's Second Law: The net force (F) acting upon a body is equal to the body's mass (m) multiplied by the body's acceleration (a). F = ma. Perhaps the most important equation in physics. F and a are vector quantities. One analyzes F and a in terms of an "x-component", a "y-component", and a "z-component". Hold out your right hand; extend your thumb vertically; extend your forefinger away from you; extend your middle finger parallel to your body. Your hand configuration illustrates the three dimensions of geometrical space and constitutes the "right-hand rule", important in electrical engineering.

Newton's Third Law: A force exerted against a body is opposed by an equal and opposite force. Press your forefinger against a wall. Hard. The wall presses hard against your forefinger. The wall doesn't move appreciably, however. Now press your finger against a balloon. The balloon floats away. You have exerted a force against the balloon, and the balloon floats away. While your finger touches the balloon's surface, it exerts a force against the balloon; which the balloon exerts against your finger. One the balloon floats away from your finger, Newton's Third Law ceases to apply.

Want to analyze the motion of JFK's head according to the (fake) Z-film? Apply Newton's three laws. The first law says the head doesn't move unless acted upon by a force. The second law says the force acting upon the head is proportional to its mass and its acceleration (force and acceleration being vector, or directional, quantities). The third law says you hit the skull with a force, the skull reacts with an equal and opposite force.

OK, Luis Alvarez. A bullet hits the skull from behind. Creates pressure in the skull. Causes brain matter to exit through the entrance hole. Also causes the skull to move in the direction of the bullet. What is the net force upon the skull? BTW, I know the answer.

[Ramon F. Herrera]

Jet propulsion requires thrust.

from where is this thrust coming?

Glenn:

I am afraid you may be conflating the terms "jet" and "self-propelled".

In none of the scenarios considered:

• Experiments by Dr. Alvarez and others

• Billiard

• Water balloons delivered from automobile

• Baseball player diving in one direction, throwing the ball in the opposite direction.

was self-propulsion involved.

Then again, there was an example of salmon swimming upstream.

-RFH

Edited October 21, 2015 by Ramon F. Herrera

[Glenn Nall]

A Brief Lesson in Newtonian Physics

Newton's First Law: A body changes its state of motion only if acted upon by a force. It's clear from the (faked) Z-film that JFK's head was acted upon by some force or forces. A Newtonian analysis involves determining the net force (magnitude along the three spacial directions) and the head's center of gravity. All complex, requiring a knowledge of physics and anatomy. But bottom line: some force or forces acted upon JFK's skull beginning at Z-313, if one believes the Z-film is for real.

Newton's Second Law: The net force (F) acting upon a body is equal to the body's mass (m) multiplied by the body's acceleration (a). F = ma. Perhaps the most important equation in physics. F and a are vector quantities. One analyzes F and a in terms of an "x-component", a "y-component", and a "z-component". Hold out your right hand; extend your thumb vertically; extend your forefinger away from you; extend your middle finger parallel to your body. Your hand configuration illustrates the three dimensions of geometrical space and constitutes the "right-hand rule", important in electrical engineering.

Newton's Third Law: A force exerted against a body is opposed by an equal and opposite force. Press your forefinger against a wall. Hard. The wall presses hard against your forefinger. The wall doesn't move appreciably, however. Now press your finger against a balloon. The balloon floats away. You have exerted a force against the balloon, and the balloon floats away. While your finger touches the balloon's surface, it exerts a force against the balloon; which the balloon exerts against your finger. One the balloon floats away from your finger, Newton's Third Law ceases to apply.

Want to analyze the motion of JFK's head according to the (fake) Z-film? Apply Newton's three laws. The first law says the head doesn't move unless acted upon by a force. The second law says the force acting upon the head is proportional to its mass and its acceleration (force and acceleration being vector, or directional, quantities). The third law says you hit the skull with a force, the skull reacts with an equal and opposite force.

OK, Luis Alvarez. A bullet hits the skull from behind. Creates pressure in the skull. Causes brain matter to exit through the entrance hole. Also causes the skull to move in the direction of the bullet. What is the net force upon the skull? BTW, I know the answer.

thank God, some real science where it's called for. I mean, thank Jon.

i would venture that a very small amount of energy is lost in the expulsion of content back outward of the entrance - that a large majority of energy is transferred to the skull "as a singular object (at first) while the projectile retains a goodly (is it ok to use the word goodly in a conversation of physics?) amount of energy - which puts the net force of upon the skull at about 75% of the energy of the travelling bullet at the point of impact (decrease in velocity, etc...)

as a side note, my take on this ridiculous jet effect theory has always been that the thrust created at the exit point of such an enormous energy is what propels the skull/head back toward to direction of the bullet. if that's what the jet effect is, then i feel really sorry for people who buy it.

If i'm wrong as to the concept, then i'm wrong and will be happily corrected.

i don't know the values of energy, but I went with a rough guess of 75% of the energy the bullet was bringing with it.

[Robert Prudhomme]

I hate to disagree with everyone here but, I do not believe JFK was knocked over by a bullet; either in the jet effect scenario or the frontal shot scenario. I believe what we are witnessing in the Z film at z313 is two things that look like one.

The recoil I see in the film, from the head shot, is very brief and sharp and of a duration of maybe a second at the most. In this recoil, you can see JFK moving back and to the left maybe, at the most, an inch or two, before rebounding back slightly. THEN, we see JFK moving to his left and back. However, while most of you see him being driven back and to the left, I simply see him falling over as he loses consciousness and all motor control over his body.

I have seen the same thing more times than I care to remember hunting deer.