JFK Assassination Plus General Discussion & Debate > JFK Assassination Plus General Discussion And Debate
Newsweek: A new study has debunked a long-held JFK assassination conspiracy theo
Joe Elliott:
--- Quote from: Matt Grantham on May 01, 2018, 03:05:52 AM ---
So you are not actually arguing physics if you are arguing for a spasm
--- End quote ---
Correct. I am arguing biology, not physics.
That is not to say that physics is an impossible explanation for something like this. There are too many films of melons and even skulls being propelled backwards, toward the rifle. But none of them show this backwards motion starting 55 milliseconds after the bullet struck. None of them show the melon starting to move backwards slowly and then gradually build up speed over the next 200 milliseconds.
So, despite what many CTers say, who never took a high school course in physics, an object being propelled back toward the rifle would not be a ?Violation of the Laws of Physics?. But in the JFK case, it is not the true explanation.
Matt Grantham:
--- Quote from: Joe Elliott on May 01, 2018, 03:19:03 AM ---
Correct. I am arguing biology, not physics.
That is not to say that physics is an impossible explanation for something like this. There are too many films of melons and even skulls being propelled backwards, toward the rifle. But none of them show this backwards motion starting 55 milliseconds after the bullet struck. None of them show the melon starting to move backwards slowly and then gradually build up speed over the next 200 milliseconds.
So, despite what many CTers say, who never took a high school course in physics, an object being propelled back toward the rifle would not be a ?Violation of the Laws of Physics?. But in the JFK case, it is not the true explanation.
--- End quote ---
In case you become interested in physics here is something from Tony Szamboti in regard to the fanciful jet effect
Dr. Alvarez claims that President Kennedy?s head recoiled the way a rocket recoils when its
jet exhaust is ejected. However, he does not explain any mechanism for putting an opposite
force on the head when the jet was expelled forward. He simply makes the case for the
potential of the jet taking out more momentum than that brought in by the bullet. In order for
a jet effect to have occurred a pressure would have to be built up inside the head, acting at
least rearward as well as forward, which was then relieved on the forward side allowing the
rearward pressure to dominate and create an unbalanced force in that direction. This is usually
done with either a combustion process or having a pressure on tap in a sealed volume. The
thrust in a jet or rocket engine can be computed based on the change in momentum of the
exhaust gases with respect to time. However, this change in momentum is directly related to
the forward acting pressure opposite that of the exhaust gases, since their initial pressure
values are the same but one is allowed to escape.
As far as melons an goats post something and I will gladly reply Magicians with melons are laughingly easy to dismiss from what I have seen so far
Joe Elliott:
--- Quote from: Matt Grantham on May 01, 2018, 03:31:45 AM ---
In case you become interested in physics here is something from Tony Szamboti in regard to the fanciful jet effect
Dr. Alvarez claims that President Kennedy?s head recoiled the way a rocket recoils when its
jet exhaust is ejected. However, he does not explain any mechanism for putting an opposite
force on the head when the jet was expelled forward. He simply makes the case for the
potential of the jet taking out more momentum than that brought in by the bullet. In order for
a jet effect to have occurred a pressure would have to be built up inside the head, acting at
least rearward as well as forward, which was then relieved on the forward side allowing the
rearward pressure to dominate and create an unbalanced force in that direction. This is usually
done with either a combustion process or having a pressure on tap in a sealed volume. The
thrust in a jet or rocket engine can be computed based on the change in momentum of the
exhaust gases with respect to time. However, this change in momentum is directly related to
the forward acting pressure opposite that of the exhaust gases, since their initial pressure
values are the same but one is allowed to escape.
--- End quote ---
It appears to me you have never taken a high school course in Physics. Or if you did, you have forgotten the basics. Is this correct?
Don?t you think it?s possible that the problem is not with Dr. Alvarez?s understanding of Physics but your understanding of Physics?
It?s not a question of ?building up enough pressure?. It?s a question of the amount of momentum carried by the debris we see being propelled forward from JFK?s head.
If this debris contains more momentum than the amount of momentum deposited by the bullet, then JFK?s head must be propelled backwards, back toward the rifle, to allow momentum to be conserved. If it does not, then the head is not propelled backwards.
Clearly melons, at least in some cases, sends enough melon juice downrange, to cause the melon to be propelled backwards, to allow momentum to be conserved. We have proof of this on film. You can?t dismiss this with clever phrases like ?This would violate the laws of physics?. Particularly when you do not understand the basic laws of physics.
This does not appear to happen with JFK?s head, because there is a delay in the movement backwards of his head. The debris has not propelled forward with enough momentum for this to happen.
Matt Grantham:
--- Quote from: Joe Elliott on May 01, 2018, 03:44:22 AM ---
It appears to me you have never taken a high school course in Physics. Or if you did, you have forgotten the basics. Is this correct?
Don?t you think it?s possible that the problem is not with Dr. Alvarez?s understanding of Physics but your understanding of Physics?
It?s not a question of ?building up enough pressure?. It?s a question of the amount of momentum carried by the debris we see being propelled forward from JFK?s head.
If this debris contains more momentum than the amount of momentum deposited by the bullet, then JFK?s head must be propelled backwards, back toward the rifle, to allow momentum to be conserved. If it does not, then the head is not propelled backwards.
Clearly melons, at least in some cases, sends enough melon juice downrange, to cause the melon to be propelled backwards, to allow momentum to be conserved. We have proof of this on film. You can?t dismiss this with clever phrases like ?This would violate the laws of physics?. Particularly when you do not understand the basic laws of physics.
This does not appear to happen with JFK?s head, because there is a delay in the movement backwards of his head. The debris has not propelled forward with enough momentum for this to happen.
--- End quote ---
Try to be accurate please I cited Szamboti refuting Alvarez so lets not couch in terms that I know better than Alvarez
I is kind of funny that you in a sense ave hit the nail on the head with your claim that the material being blown out of Kennedy's head is greater to that of the bullet since that is what Szamboti is basically saying Certainly you understand that the collision of projectile striking an object cannot release more energy than the force imparted from the original impact unless an additional energetic reaction occurs within JFKs head So that seems to be to be the bottom line JFK had some kind of explosive material in his head
As for the melon heads On one the melon rolls up to the lip of the tray hits the beveled upward edge of the tray and then roils back in the direction of the shot because of the lip Another the melon is balanced on the table and when the gunshot removes more material from the far side of the melon from the direction of the shot than the remaining portion nearer the incoming shot and its fulcrum is changed and it rolls back in the direction of the shot
Next
Joe Elliott:
--- Quote from: Matt Grantham on May 01, 2018, 04:10:21 AM ---
Try to be accurate please I cited Szamboti refuting Alvarez so lets not couch in terms that I know better than Alvarez
--- End quote ---
So, you are not claiming that you know Physics better than Alvarez did. You are only claiming that Szamboti understand Physics better than Alvarez did. Both are equally invalid claims.
And this same Zamboti claims the ?Jet Effect? is impossible and the collapse of the towers of the World Trade Center from fires is also impossible.
Basically, despite your claims about what really causes the ?Jet Effect? for melons, the jet effect has been demonstrated on film and Dr. Alvarez, who understood Physics better than you or Szamboti, said that the ?Jet Effect? was the true explanation. And I believe him. As far as melons are concerned.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version