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

Luis Alvarez, a paid stooge, treated the jet effect, which is real, as being the dominant absorbent of the bullet's kinetic energy. He was a xxxx. Like Dartmouth's Farid.

Hi Jon:

I find very hard to believe that professor Farid's research is not legitimate:

( a ) I am sure he has students. There were assignments, homework. This was teamwork. The reputation of Dartmouth is at stake here. Other professors (even outside the Computer Science Department) are implicitly certifying, not that Dr. Farid is infallible, mind you, but that he has academic honesty and integrity.

Note: I always say this: "When it comes to the truth, the only reference is our universities"

( b ) His study can easily be replicated. It is a heck of a lot easier and cheaper than the one for which I am lobbying, related to the Physics of the Fatal Shot.

Just to give you an idea. All these people have PhDs, Master's, etc. (from Cornell and other universities more prestigious than Dartmouth):

https://github.com/gahansen/Albany

https://github.com/gahansen/Albany/network/members (Members)

and have not achieved the bullet penetrating software functions yet.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z2OUrnQ3mRU

If you read the Comments Section under the YouTube video, you will learn that the author of the original software, Alejandro Mota, had to relinquish it to its owner, CalTech.

-Ramon

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

  • Replies 100
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

David,

A. I have no reason to believe the "jet effect" portion of the video was edited in order to fool anybody. Do you have reason to believe it was?

It's clearly edited.

At the 2:04 mark -a shot over Teller's right shoulder, Jackie melon on left, JFK melon on right.

At the 2:05 mark -a tight zoom on Teller's trigger finger.

At the 2:06 mark - a medium shot over Teller shoulder - shot blasts JFK melon - note the direction hat falls

At the 2:07 mark - a tight shot melon blasted forward off table

At the 2:08 mark - a medium shot slo-mo that seems to be from the opposite side (per pink hat fall direction) showing melon falling off table

btw: Penn says his rifle is the exact make and model Oswald used.

TV magic but you know about that subject right?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Z-FilmClipSBTInMotion3.gif

And Connely's [sic] left shoulder, why has it grown over 3-4 frames? If not shoulder growth[,] perhaps a shadow? If so, what is creating that shadow that appears cast on Jackie[?]

He's flinching his shoulders, David.

That's kinda the whole point. (Duh.)

Governor Connally is involuntarily reacting to having just been shot.

Connally involuntarily flinching his shoulders? JFK hasn't done that, wait, that's right, same magic bullet, right?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In the Penn & Teller "melon test" video, they definitely shot two separate melons [see photos below]. The first one fell AWAY from the shooter (but it doesn't seem to have any "exit" hole at all, which seems very strange).

The second melon falls toward the gunman, and it exhibits a huge spray of melon juice exiting out the right side of the melon, and both the entry and exit holes in that second melon are clearly visible. Whereas, the first melon has only a visible entry hole, with no big explosion at the exit at all. ~big shrug~

So, yes, there's some sleight-of-hand regarding what SEEMS to be just ONE single melon test, even though it's quite obviously two different tests.

But the melon I labelled "Melon 2" most definitely exhibits the so-called "jet effect". There's a huge explosion on the exiting side of the melon, with the remaining (largest) portion of the melon moving toward the shooter.

Plus, if you look fast in the video, you can see the melon falling toward the shooter in the camera angle that is filmed over the gunman's shoulder.

Penn-And-Teller-Melons.png

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

In the Penn & Teller "melon test" video, they definitely shot two separate melons. The first one fell AWAY from the shooter (but it doesn't seem to have any "exit" hole at all, which seems very strange).

David,

There could have been 10 melons. Who knows? My point is that it's a TV show with entertainers. They don't care if they fake anything, in fact Penn & Teller are magicians -their trade is sleight of hand. With Final Cut Pro and a little time we could make those melons go in whatever direction you want. Let's retire that clip.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

David,

There could have been 10 melons. Who knows? My point is that it's a TV show with entertainers. They don't care if they fake anything, in fact Penn & Teller are magicians -their trade is sleight of hand. With Final Cut Pro and a little time we could make those melons go in whatever direction you want. Let's retire that clip.

"Melon 2" isn't "sleight of hand", Chris. It's a continuous piece of video/film that proves the jet effect. A small entry hole on the left, and a huge blasted-out spray of melon juice on the right. And then the melon falls toward the gunman.

The "sleight of hand" comes in during the close-up of "Melon 1", which was evidently struck with the bullet in a place that wasn't dead center. It must have struck to the far left side of the melon. Maybe a tangential strike, resulting in no hole on the other side. Hence, no exit hole visible. And, hence, no "jet effect" would be produced by that melon, since there was no big spray of melon juice being blasted out the right side. I would think that's the reason that that particular melon fell AWAY from the gunman.

"Editing" of the video? Yes. Definitely. You are correct about that part, Chris. No doubt about that.

But I don't see any deception with respect to the thing that counts the most -- the slow motion footage showing the melon ("Melon 2") falling toward the person who fired the bullet into it. That is one continuous, unbroken piece of videotape (or film).

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

David,

There could have been 10 melons. Who knows? My point is that it's a TV show with entertainers. They don't care if they fake anything, in fact Penn & Teller are magicians -their trade is sleight of hand. With Final Cut Pro and a little time we could make those melons go in whatever direction you want. Let's retire that clip.

...

But I don't see any deception with respect to the thing that counts the most -- the slow motion footage showing the melon ("Melon 2") falling toward the person who fired the bullet into it. That is one continuous, unbroken piece of videotape (or film).

wow! I was wondering why you've been absent at AMAZON? Thought it was Holmes kickin' your rearend daily that you disappeared. And Holmes has been doing the job royally at AMAZON! But here you are resurrecting that old canard the "jet effect."

You're a hoot son (quoting old Steve Keating one of your old mentors)....

Trust me when I tell you, you're going to feel a whole lot better when you finally conclude a conspiracy murdered JFK. Cleanse the soul...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Glenn Nall @ post #44

Your conceptual analysis is correct according the law of Conservation of Energy, the most fundamental law of physics. Which states that the total energy of a "closed system" (for example, a system consisting of a rifle bullet, the air through which it travels, the head it strikes, the body to which the head is attached, the car seat on which the body rests) is constant at all times; the total energy neither increases nor decreases. This is a deep principle, which underlies all engineering.

We know from Conservation of Energy that the kinetic energy of the bullet that strikes JFK's head is conserved; none of this kinetic energy is "lost." This is true whether the bullet is jacketed and does not break apart in the skull or whether, as Robert Prudhomme argues, the bullet was frangible and broke apart in the skull.

If the bullet did not exit the skull, all of the bullet's kinetic energy was transferred initially to the skull. What became of this energy? Some of it was transferred as kinetic energy of bone, scalp, hair, and brain matter that the bullet or its fragments blasted into motion. Some of the kinetic energy was absorbed by muscles supporting the head; this energy was converted to electrical energy within the muscles and dissipated as heat (a form of energy).

If the bullet exited the skull, its kinetic energy as it exited was transferred to something else. If an intact bullet exited through the right top of JFK's skull, the kinetic energy of the bullet as it exited the skull was imparted somewhat to the air through which it traveled until it hit, say, the dashboard of the presidential limo; thereupon it transferred its remaining kinetic energy to the dashboard, mostly as heat energy.

Kinetic energy, all energy in fact, is a vector quantity, meaning it has values in the x, y, and z directions.

Luiz Alvarez, a paid stooge, treated the jet effect, which is real, as being the dominant absorbent of the bullet's kinetic energy. He was a xxxx. Like Dartmouth's Farid.

Mr. Tidd,

For the sake of physics correctness:

First of all, you are correct that Conservation of Energy is a deep and fundamental principle of physics. Correctly stated, the energy of an isolated system remains constant. (A closed system is defined as one in which matter cannot enter of leave; however energy can.) Contrary to your statement, energy is not a vector quantity. Energy, kinetic or otherwise, is a scalar quantity defined without direction.

The problem with using Conservation of Energy to analyze collisions is that if there is any plastic deformation, fragmentation, etc. of the objects involved in the collision (i.e. anything that is not simple and complete bouncing), then mechanical energy will be transformed into thermal energy or sound energy that will radiate away and become very difficult to quantify. So a statement like, “We know from Conservation of Energy that the kinetic energy of the bullet that strikes JFK's head is conserved; none of this kinetic energy is "lost."” is potentially incorrect or at best a bit misleading. Energy will not be “lost” when the bullet strikes JFK, the total energy will stay the same (at least instantaneously); but the amount of kinetic energy will absolutely very quickly decrease as both bullet and body fragment and deform and the objects heat up. And then extremely quickly energy will radiate away (eventually into outer space) in the form of heat (since there is no way to thermally isolate the system of bullet/JFK/etc.). A further problem with using Conservation of Energy to analyze collisions is that energy is not directional. No conclusion about the direction of anything can be made based on energy arguments.

Therefore, when analyzing collisions, it is typically another bedrock principle of physics, Conservation of Momentum, that is much more useful. Like energy, the momentum of an isolated system remains constant. Unlike kinetic energy, momentum will not transform into a different type that radiates away or becomes difficult to quantify. Unlike energy, momentum is a vector quantity, conserved in any given direction, and directional conclusions can be drawn.

Now, the bigger point here is correct: the “jet effect” can in no way explain the backwards movement of JFK’s head. So while I could certainly imagine a situation where upon being shot, a vessel or object fractures in such a way that the shell of the object falls in the direction the shot came from, conservation of momentum dictates that in this case there must be a corresponding spray of material in the opposite direction, that is the direction the bullet is traveling; the net final momentum equals the original momentum of the bullet. So for JFK’s head to lurch backwards due to a shot from behind, there must be a very significant net spray of blood, skull, and brain tissue to the front. But as we all know, Jackie climbed onto the back of the limo to retrieve a piece of skull and from reliable eyewitness testimony, especially that of DPD motorcycle policeman Bobby Hargis, the mass of spray went to the back. So by the law of conservation of momentum, skull thrown to back + spray to the back = shot from the front. This is elementary physics.

Now that won’t prevent some from arguing otherwise. They’ll pretend that Hargis wasn’t hit by massive high-velocity spray and Jackie was trying to help Hill on board and neural-muscular reaction occurred to throw JFK back. But I know intellectual dishonestly when I see it, and the whole Alvarez/Jet Effect is just that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Luis Alvarez, a paid stooge, treated the jet effect, which is real, as being the dominant absorbent of the bullet's kinetic energy. He was a xxxx. Like Dartmouth's Farid.

Hi Jon:

I find very hard to believe that professor Farid's research is not legitimate:

( a ) I am sure he has students. There were assignments, homework. This was teamwork. The reputation of Dartmouth is at stake here. Other professors (even outside the Computer Science Department) are implicitly certifying, not that Dr. Farid is infallible, mind you, but that he has academic honesty and integrity.

Note: I always say this: "When it comes to the truth, the only reference is our universities"

( b ) His study can easily be replicated. It is a heck of a lot easier and cheaper than the one for which I am lobbying, related to the Physics of the Fatal Shot.

Just to give you an idea. All these people have PhDs, Master's, etc. (from Cornell and other universities more prestigious than Dartmouth):

https://github.com/gahansen/Albany

https://github.com/gahansen/Albany/network/members (Members)

and have not achieved the bullet penetrating software functions yet.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z2OUrnQ3mRU

If you read the Comments Section under the YouTube video, you will learn that the author of the original software, Alejandro Mota, had to relinquish it to its owner, CalTech.

-Ramon

"When it comes to the truth, the only reference is our universities"

really?

i mean, REALLY? you believe that?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Glenn Nall @ post #44

Your conceptual analysis is correct according the law of Conservation of Energy, the most fundamental law of physics. Which states that the total energy of a "closed system" (for example, a system consisting of a rifle bullet, the air through which it travels, the head it strikes, the body to which the head is attached, the car seat on which the body rests) is constant at all times; the total energy neither increases nor decreases. This is a deep principle, which underlies all engineering.

We know from Conservation of Energy that the kinetic energy of the bullet that strikes JFK's head is conserved; none of this kinetic energy is "lost." This is true whether the bullet is jacketed and does not break apart in the skull or whether, as Robert Prudhomme argues, the bullet was frangible and broke apart in the skull.

If the bullet did not exit the skull, all of the bullet's kinetic energy was transferred initially to the skull. What became of this energy? Some of it was transferred as kinetic energy of bone, scalp, hair, and brain matter that the bullet or its fragments blasted into motion. Some of the kinetic energy was absorbed by muscles supporting the head; this energy was converted to electrical energy within the muscles and dissipated as heat (a form of energy).

If the bullet exited the skull, its kinetic energy as it exited was transferred to something else. If an intact bullet exited through the right top of JFK's skull, the kinetic energy of the bullet as it exited the skull was imparted somewhat to the air through which it traveled until it hit, say, the dashboard of the presidential limo; thereupon it transferred its remaining kinetic energy to the dashboard, mostly as heat energy.

Kinetic energy, all energy in fact, is a vector quantity, meaning it has values in the x, y, and z directions.

Luiz Alvarez, a paid stooge, treated the jet effect, which is real, as being the dominant absorbent of the bullet's kinetic energy. He was a xxxx. Like Dartmouth's Farid.

Mr. Tidd,

For the sake of physics correctness:

First of all, you are correct that Conservation of Energy is a deep and fundamental principle of physics. Correctly stated, the energy of an isolated system remains constant. (A closed system is defined as one in which matter cannot enter of leave; however energy can.) Contrary to your statement, energy is not a vector quantity. Energy, kinetic or otherwise, is a scalar quantity defined without direction.

The problem with using Conservation of Energy to analyze collisions is that if there is any plastic deformation, fragmentation, etc. of the objects involved in the collision (i.e. anything that is not simple and complete bouncing), then mechanical energy will be transformed into thermal energy or sound energy that will radiate away and become very difficult to quantify. So a statement like, “We know from Conservation of Energy that the kinetic energy of the bullet that strikes JFK's head is conserved; none of this kinetic energy is "lost."” is potentially incorrect or at best a bit misleading. Energy will not be “lost” when the bullet strikes JFK, the total energy will stay the same (at least instantaneously); but the amount of kinetic energy will absolutely very quickly decrease as both bullet and body fragment and deform and the objects heat up. And then extremely quickly energy will radiate away (eventually into outer space) in the form of heat (since there is no way to thermally isolate the system of bullet/JFK/etc.). A further problem with using Conservation of Energy to analyze collisions is that energy is not directional. No conclusion about the direction of anything can be made based on energy arguments.

Therefore, when analyzing collisions, it is typically another bedrock principle of physics, Conservation of Momentum, that is much more useful. Like energy, the momentum of an isolated system remains constant. Unlike kinetic energy, momentum will not transform into a different type that radiates away or becomes difficult to quantify. Unlike energy, momentum is a vector quantity, conserved in any given direction, and directional conclusions can be drawn.

Now, the bigger point here is correct: the “jet effect” can in no way explain the backwards movement of JFK’s head. So while I could certainly imagine a situation where upon being shot, a vessel or object fractures in such a way that the shell of the object falls in the direction the shot came from, conservation of momentum dictates that in this case there must be a corresponding spray of material in the opposite direction, that is the direction the bullet is traveling; the net final momentum equals the original momentum of the bullet. So for JFK’s head to lurch backwards due to a shot from behind, there must be a very significant net spray of blood, skull, and brain tissue to the front. But as we all know, Jackie climbed onto the back of the limo to retrieve a piece of skull and from reliable eyewitness testimony, especially that of DPD motorcycle policeman Bobby Hargis, the mass of spray went to the back. So by the law of conservation of momentum, skull thrown to back + spray to the back = shot from the front. This is elementary physics.

Now that won’t prevent some from arguing otherwise. They’ll pretend that Hargis wasn’t hit by massive high-velocity spray and Jackie was trying to help Hill on board and neural-muscular reaction occurred to throw JFK back. But I know intellectual dishonestly when I see it, and the whole Alvarez/Jet Effect is just that.

um; Amen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Al,

Thanks for your corrections and elaboration. In particular for your distinction between isolated and closed systems.

I know that mathematically energy is a scalar. I've never thought energy was anything but directional, however, physically. That's just me, but I have my reasons. I appreciate there is an engineer (or physicist) reading my posts on physics. Thanks!

BTW, I wrote my comment in question as a response to another poster's comment about the bullet's energy being transferred (instantaneously) to JFK's head. I was drawn to a conservation-of-energy analysis because the energy of an M.C. bullet fired from the sniper's net is knowable, pretty much, at all points in time. The momentum of such a bullet at any point in time is a guess, given what you say about momentum's being a vector quantity.

I don't know how, except conceptually, one can do a conservation-of-momentum analysis of the murder itself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jon G. Tidd, on 23 Oct 2015 - 3:57 PM, said:

I don't know how, except conceptually, one can do a conservation-of-momentum analysis of the murder itself.

Hi Jon:

Where you wrote "conservation-of-momentum analysis of the murder" can we assume that you meant "conservation-of-momentum analysis of the fatal shot"?

Edited by Ramon F. Herrera
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...