Saturday, July 4, 2009

 

JFK, Blown Away / What Else Do I Have to Say?

Can people recommend NNJ (non-nutjob) sites discussing the flaws with the single-shooter theory of the JFK assassination? I just saw that Gerald Posner guy on the History channel. I swear the computer graphics they were using didn't fit the basic facts of the bullet's trajectory (even though they were using an animation to "show" you that Oswald obviously acted alone). Plus, Gene Callahan blew me off in the comments at this thread, so I'm going to challenge him to a duel on this topic.



Comments:
"I swear the computer graphics they were using didn't fit the basic facts of the bullet's trajectory."

Mr. Murphy, if you're referring to JFK's head jerking towards the direction the bullet was fired from, this video might be of interest (it's anti-conspiracy, tough).

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=745248745546892501&ei=uM5PSoPTLsHG-Ab01uitDg&q=penn+and+teller+jfk
 
You may also be interested in this simulation. It allows you to attempt to recreate the shot. It probably wont change your mind but it will give you a broad idea of the exact physics involved.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/index.html?curid=1199406
 
We will meet at the cliffs of Weehawken.
 
Bob, there are no nut-job sites questioning the single-shooter idea.

By the way, there is a very good proof that LHO and not some internal conspiracy did it: the Soviets would have told us.

That's the same argument I use for anybody trying to claim the moon landing was faked: the Soviets would have told us.
 
The _deep_ conspiracy here is the genius of constructing and planting all of the "evidence" against the multi-shooter conspiracy theory ..
 
Posner's book, "Case Closed" is excellent. However, I say this having read it only once and that was a good 15 years ago.

It certainly comes across as far more likely than the conspiracy theories.
 
Well, it appears that the LAWS of physics have been broken once again. Someone please explain to me how, if I took a baseball bat and smacked it against the back of someone's head, the head jolts backwards first? Arrggghhh !! Come on now.... By the way Bob, my wife and I bought and read your book, and it was phenomenal !!!
 
Yeah, acjitsu, except this piece of paranoid conspiracy nonsense has been addressed many times:

********

Excerpts from testimony of Dr. Werner Spitz to the Rockefeller Commission on April 18, 1975. Excerpts taken from transcript beginning at page 57. Robert Olsen (Q.) is the questioner, Dr. Spitz (A.) the respondent.

Q. May I ask this, then. Do you have any opinion, based upon your observing several times the Zapruder motion picture film, as to whether that film indicates that the President was struck by a bullet fired from the right front of the Presidential car?

A. No, the President was struck from the back both times, the one in the back and the one in the head definitely indicated that.

Q. Is the backward movement that you have observed of the President's body after the shot was fired and after the body first moved somewhat to the front, the body moved backward then rather vigorously, did it not?

A. Yes.

Q. Does that backward movement of the President's body indicate in any respect whatever that the shot came from the right front to the front of the car?

A. No. I am not even sure that at that moment the President did go back, because of the lack of control that he was able to exercise on his body to refrain from going back upon accelartion of the automobile.

Q. You don't know for sure whether the automobile was accelerated at that point?

A. I don't. But even if it was accelerating, he could not hold himself at that moment, because he had lost all nervous control, he had no control to speak of, because half of his brain was lost.

Q. Was it also possible that the backward movement of the body at that point was purely a neuromuscular response.

A. It was a neuromuscular response activated by the destruction of the centers.

Q. You are talking about the nerve centers?

A. The nerve centers.
 
Oh, yeah, and this guy testifies that he conducted thousands of experiments shooting animals (not morally to his credit, perhaps, but forensically certainly so) and says that they fell in the direction of the shot about as often as they fell away from it. So your "law" of physics turns out to be complete rubbish.
 
Ok. Gene. You OBVIOUSLY don't understand a damn thing about physics. For example, take a ball, hold it at shoulder height. Then let go. Hey, that's called GRAVITY. Do you believe in gravity? If you don't then try walking off the edge of a skyscraper and find out what happens.
Oh, because this person testified in front of the ROCKERFELLER commission, I should take that as fact?. As far as I'm concerned, just that in itself solidifies my argument.
Let me ask you this. The animals used, did they have the same or similar cranial size and body mass as JFK? Were the animals shot while in a car driving at constant acceleration? Were all other variable accounted for? Were the exact same circumstances replicated as best as possible? That's important. Listen I don't believe in conspiracies, I believe in FACTS. Case closed. Thank you....
 
I get it, acjitsu. You're saying JFK was dropped off of the top of a skyscraper, right?

"Oh, because this person testified in front of the ROCKERFELLER commission, I should take that as fact?. As far as I'm concerned, just that in itself solidifies my argument."

That's right. Because they are experts in the effects of being shot, with years of experience studying these things, they MUST be wrong!
 
Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]





<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?

Subscribe to Posts [Atom]