The Truly Magical Bullet

[Gary Craig]

Because they never skip having an autopsy just because a patient died in the Emergency Room and has already been examined by a doctor.


Question:

Can you name a single case where an autopsy was not done because the patient had already been examined by Emergency Room doctors?

LOL

[Mitch Todd]

An honest approach? That's comical coming from a LNer. Did you think I modified an "official" autopsy image of JFK? Or is it because that's all you got? I modified the image to show the path of the bullet as shown in the x-ray. I could only find an overhead scan showing T1 so I modified it to show C7. I didn't realize LNers needed a disclaimer that it wasn't an "official" image of JFK and to use it at your own risk. You guys need to get a clue.

Anyone who wants to dig through all the hot air in your reply will find, in the middle of all that whargarrbl, there is the statement: "I modified the image to show the path of the bullet as shown in the x-ray." That's not what you did. You selected the wrong section, then tried to relabel it in order to mislead. And it's one of a consecutive series of axial images from the cerebellum to the bottom of T2, so it shouldn't have been too hard to find the right one. For that matter, the internet is littered with CT example images, or any section, so I can't buy your explanation that it was the only one you could find. 

So what about the x-ray image, Sheriff? I modified that one too to show the bullet hole thru C7. Is that one dishonest too?

At this point, does it really matter? You've already sunk your credibility.

[Mitch Todd]

The is FALSE.

I'm sure you didn't mean it this way. When I read it, all I could think of was Mary McCarthy and Lillian Hellman

[Mitch Todd]

Fewest assumptions = simplest. EOS

But by all means, how many assumptions (and denial) must you make to accept the SBT versus that CE-399 was planted?

Show us Occam's Razor in the hands of an expert, such as yourself.

Consider for a moment Newton's second law, F=ma. Simple isn't it?

But it doesn't tell the whole story. It assumes that the mass cannot deform, and that there is no drag acting on it once it moves.

So, the real equation has to add those terms, and we get the familiar 2nd order ODE, F=ma+cv+kx where cv is the the drag term and kx represents the deformation of the mass under load. F=ma is simple, but F=ma+cv+kx is correct.

At least, more correct. F=ma+cv+kx assumes that the ma, cv, and kx terms are linear. But they really aren't. It turns out that mass is a function of velocity, and kx is only considered to be linear through a relatively limited range of x-values.

Removing the assumptions makes things more complicated.

But you're a physicist, so you know that already, right?

[Jack Trojan]

Did not, you moron.

Did so. You claimed that the back wound was 2 inches right of center and the distance from the back to neck was 6.5 inches, correct? I put the wound 2 inches right of the spine and extended a line thru the spine and out the throat. The angle for that happened to be 12 degrees. I admit that I shouldn't have extended the line to the chest cavity but this was merely to show you the path of the MB thru JFK's spine. You seem to be confusing this with the pitch angle from the 6th floor of the TSBD. I was giving you the benefit of the doubt and setting that at 9 degrees, when the official angle was actually estimated to be 7 degrees.

Here's YOUR final solution:



Looks like the bullet smashes thru C7 to me (just above T1 as depicted in the graphic AND the x-ray)

[Jack Trojan]

Anyone who wants to dig through all the hot air in your reply will find, in the middle of all that whargarrbl, there is the statement: "I modified the image to show the path of the bullet as shown in the x-ray." That's not what you did.

Yes it is.

You selected the wrong section, then tried to relabel it in order to mislead. And it's one of a consecutive series of axial images from the cerebellum to the bottom of T2, so it shouldn't have been too hard to find the right one. For that matter, the internet is littered with CT example images, or any section, so I can't buy your explanation that it was the only one you could find. 

[Jack Trojan]

Consider for a moment Newton's second law, F=ma. Simple isn't it?

But it doesn't tell the whole story. It assumes that the mass cannot deform, and that there is no drag acting on it once it moves.

So, the real equation has to add those terms, and we get the familiar 2nd order ODE, F=ma+cv+kx where cv is the the drag term and kx represents the deformation of the mass under load. F=ma is simple, but F=ma+cv+kx is correct.

At least, more correct. F=ma+cv+kx assumes that the ma, cv, and kx terms are linear. But they really aren't. It turns out that mass is a function of velocity, and kx is only considered to be linear through a relatively limited range of x-values.

Removing the assumptions makes things more complicated.

But you're a physicist, so you know that already, right?

Yes I am, and you obviously aren't and it takes one to know one. You do realize that Occam's Razor is just a philosophical principle, right?