Glenn Nall Posted October 21, 2015 Share Posted October 21, 2015 (edited) Jet propulsion requires thrust. from where is this thrust coming? Glenn: I am afraid you are 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. -RFH right. i'm referring to jet propulsion, such as that which jet engines provide on aircraft. what causes the aircraft to move forward is the thrust that the jet engines provide. self-propulsion never entered my mind. perhaps it's on yours a bit...? when people are discussing something called a "jet effect" i can only think that the idea of propulsion is implied by the word jet. is there a reason I should not have made that connection? Edited October 21, 2015 by Glenn Nall Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Glenn Nall Posted October 21, 2015 Share Posted October 21, 2015 i'm mostly convinced that he was struck in the head by two bullets (and that one was an "exploding" bullet). and if so, then it would have had to be simultaneous (considering the accounts of shots heard, the dictabelt recording, etc). and if this is the case, then any interpretation of head and body movement is at best guesswork. this makes me want to agree with Robert, that, assuming for a moment an unretouched Z312-314, what we see is fairly ambiguous, and interpretive. As well, assuming an 'edited' Z film, all the more that 312-314 is, at best, interpretive. one thing i feel i can bank on, Penn and Teller aside, a rifle bullet from behind did not make his head and body move backward. didn't happen, and it's time this myth gets flushed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ramon F. Herrera Posted October 21, 2015 Author Share Posted October 21, 2015 I have seen the same thing more times than I care to remember hunting deer. Bob: First, allow me to confess that I did not understand your explanation. Have you read this? http://patriot.net/~ramon/jfk/Jet-Effect-Rebuttal-by-Szamboti.pdf Due respect, but I am more persuaded by that kind of material than by your dear deer. :-) -Ramon Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Glenn Nall Posted October 21, 2015 Share Posted October 21, 2015 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 did you not even notice the word "thrust" in the article you just lauded above Robert's own experiences? http://patriot.net/~ramon/jfk/Jet-Effect-Rebuttal-by-Szamboti.pdf "Figure 1. Rocket engine thrust diagram" dude. relax. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ramon F. Herrera Posted October 21, 2015 Author Share Posted October 21, 2015 (edited) i'm mostly convinced that he was struck in the head by two bullets (and that one was an "exploding" bullet). Sorry. Can't buy that. An "exploding bullet" (in any of its multiple instantiations), from the front, would have been an overkill. Literally. Such missile would have left our admired president headless, with the ejecta as far back as Houston Street, something extremely hard to patch up in Bethesda. I have no explanation for the throat injury. At this point, I rather leave it in the "things to be determined" category. One thing should be abundantly obvious, though. The frontal shooter's order was to make a tangential shot AND the bullet would have to be as similar as possible as those of a M/C. -Ramon Edited October 22, 2015 by Ramon F. Herrera Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Glenn Nall Posted October 21, 2015 Share Posted October 21, 2015 not so. go do some reading on the various instantiations of fragmenting ammunition. "exploding" is a term of convenience. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pat Speer Posted October 22, 2015 Share Posted October 22, 2015 (edited) 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. Sturdivan mentioned this in his HSCA testimony, as I recall. All the skulls went forward in the direction of the bullet. Edited October 22, 2015 by Pat Speer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ramon F. Herrera Posted October 22, 2015 Author Share Posted October 22, 2015 If your requirement is to make a frontal shot indistinguishable from a rear one, you do not pick bullets with extra punch. -RFH Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ramon F. Herrera Posted October 22, 2015 Author Share Posted October 22, 2015 (edited) Sturdivan mentioned this in his HSCA testimony, as I recall. All the skulls went forward in the direction of the bullet. Pat: That makes a heck of a lot of sense. I am not talking about the 2 directions being the same which is simply a FACT under any scenario (*). I am referring to ... • The blatant lies by Lattimer et al. • The sincerity by Sturdivan Simply put, in 1964 we believed in Santa Claus, not quite in the late 1970s. -Ramon (*) Custom rigged cantaloupes and fancy billiard shots excluded. Last time I checked the head of our president qualified for neither category. Edited October 22, 2015 by Ramon F. Herrera Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ramon F. Herrera Posted October 22, 2015 Author Share Posted October 22, 2015 (edited) Sturdivan mentioned this in his HSCA testimony, as I recall. All the skulls went forward in the direction of the bullet. There you go, Pat: 3. The Warren Commission had a scientist Larry Sturdivan at the Aberdeen Proving Grounds shoot ten skulls with the Mannlicher-Carcano. All ten skulls moved away from the rifle and moved in the direction of the bullet. The results of this test were suppressed and were not revealed until fifteen years later during the HSCA investigation. (1HSCA404) Direction of the Fatal Shot and the Jet Effect by Stewart Galanor http://www.jfklancer.com/galanor/jet_effect_text.html Edited October 22, 2015 by Ramon F. Herrera Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Von Pein Posted October 22, 2015 Share Posted October 22, 2015 (edited) Thank you, Pat and Ramon, for the information about Larry Sturdivan's HSCA testimony.Allow me to add the following quotes from Sturdivan's book, "The JFK Myths":"The calculations show that no bullet of reasonable size can possibly throw a person in any direction. So, if the laws of physics prove that a bullet could not have "thrown" him [JFK], why did he move backward into the car seat just after the shot that killed him?[...]The question is: Did the gunshot produce enough force in expelling the material from Kennedy's head to throw his body backward into the limousine? Based on the high-speed movies of the skull shot simulations at the Biophysics Laboratory, the answer is no.[...]Dr. John Lattimer conducted some skull shots that resembled the Biophysics Division's simulations, but for which the skulls were filled with animal brain tissue. In his shots, all skulls fell back from the table [actually a ladder] in the direction of the shooter. Evidently, the lack of a jet effect from the stiff gelatin in the Biophysics Lab's simulation was a bit misleading and there was enough of a jet effect to move Kennedy's head back after its forward surge." -- Larry M. Sturdivan; Pages 162 and 164 of "The JFK Myths: A Scientific Investigation Of The Kennedy Assassination" (©2005) Edited October 22, 2015 by David Von Pein Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Von Pein Posted October 22, 2015 Share Posted October 22, 2015 (edited) BTW, the Edgewood Arsenal "Wound Ballistics Of 6.5-mm. Mannlicher-Carcano Ammunition" report is very interesting reading too. More conspiracy theorists should look at it. Here it is:http://MaryFerrell.org/documentID=62296Every single test performed between April 1964 and October 1964 by Dr. Olivier and Dr. Dziemian at Edgewood Arsenal is consistent with the Warren Commission's ultimate conclusions. For example:Per the Edgewood Arsenal ballistics tests with Lee Harvey Oswald's rifle, that exact rifle was capable of causing all of the wounds that were inflicted on President Kennedy and Governor Connally in Dallas on November 22, 1963.Quoting from the Edgewood report:"Experiments were performed with the 6.5-mm Mannlicher-Carcano assassination rifle, serial no. C2766, and 6.5-mm Western Cartridge Company, lot WCC 6000, Mannlicher-Carcano ball ammunition to reproduce the conditions occurring at the time of the assassination of President John F. Kennedy on 22 November 1963. The results indicated that the wounds sustained by the President and by Governor Connally, including the massive head wound of the President, could be produced by the above type of bullet and rifle." ------------------------------- And Dr. Lattimer's experiments produced results very similar to those of Olivier's 1964 tests. Quoting Lattimer: "Combinations of human skull tops and melons were tested, and, again, all fell backward off the stand toward the shooter. No melon or skull combination ever fell AWAY from the shooter. Human skulls were then packed with solid melon contents and taped and sewed tightly together with strong tape and thread to simulate the scalp. We fired into these at the same point and at the same angle as the President was struck. The skull wounds produced were strikingly similar to Kennedy's [see illustration below]. Again, the skulls fell or jumped off the stand toward the shooter, and large fragments of the top of the skulls flew upward and forward for distances of forty feet or more, just as fragments of Kennedy's skull can be seen to have done in frames 313 through 318 of the Zapruder movie." -- John K. Lattimer; Page 251 of "Kennedy And Lincoln" Edited October 22, 2015 by David Von Pein Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ramon F. Herrera Posted October 22, 2015 Author Share Posted October 22, 2015 "The calculations show that no bullet of reasonable size can possibly throw a person in any direction. Calculations done with sliding rule ... With lots of wrong assumptions. LMAO. I posted 5 YouTube videos at the top of the thread. In all of them the target is pushed/knocked over in the direction of the bullet. Unfortunately, only the first one was a direct hit in the sweet spot and the bad guy was blasted away. Went airborne. Had it been JFK, the corpse would have ended outside the limo, on the pavement. See that video below. 3 other bullets barely touched the top of head. The Colombian criminal has hit in the jaw. Not the best specimen. I have shown in the "Parkland Effect" that you need a Perfect Storm alignment in order to achieve lift-off at Cape Canaveral. Will repost it. I have a book with calculations that say that a 6.5mm M/C could not make JFK's head move that fast BUT a Winchester could. -Ramon ======================================== Sniper Shot Barret M107 Fast forward to minute 4:15" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pat Speer Posted October 22, 2015 Share Posted October 22, 2015 Thank you, Pat and Ramon, for the information about Larry Sturdivan's HSCA testimony. Allow me to add the following quotes from Sturdivan's book, "The JFK Myths": "The calculations show that no bullet of reasonable size can possibly throw a person in any direction. So, if the laws of physics prove that a bullet could not have "thrown" him [JFK], why did he move backward into the car seat just after the shot that killed him? [...] The question is: Did the gunshot produce enough force in expelling the material from Kennedy's head to throw his body backward into the limousine? Based on the high-speed movies of the skull shot simulations at the Biophysics Laboratory, the answer is no. [...] Dr. John Lattimer conducted some skull shots that resembled the Biophysics Division's simulations, but for which the skulls were filled with animal brain tissue. In his shots, all skulls fell back from the table [actually a ladder] in the direction of the shooter. Evidently, the lack of a jet effect from the stiff gelatin in the Biophysics Lab's simulation was a bit misleading and there was enough of a jet effect to move Kennedy's head back after its forward surge." -- Larry M. Sturdivan; Pages 162 and 164 of "The JFK Myths: A Scientific Investigation Of The Kennedy Assassination" (©2005) Yes, it's true, Sturdivan testified against the Jet Effect in 1978, and then turned around and embraced it in his book. It was one of many such reversals on his part. P.S. Note that he attributes the lack of Jet Effect in the Aberdeen tests to stiff gelatin. He was clutching at straws. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Glenn Nall Posted October 22, 2015 Share Posted October 22, 2015 If your requirement is to make a frontal shot indistinguishable from a rear one, you do not pick bullets with extra punch. -RFH who said anything about any such requirement? i'm not aware of any theory in existence that posits this degree of planning. all i've said is that i believe he was hit by two bullets, probably simultaneously, and that one was likely a fragmentary bullet (accounting for the many minuscule lead particles in the xrays, and what some pictures show to be some heavy damage to his right forehead). i do not think any group of people said, "we've got to make sure that the bullet wounds are indistinguishable." that's plain crazy. 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