Users Currently Browsing This Topic:
0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

Author Topic: The Fundamental Problem  (Read 9799 times)

Offline Jerry Freeman

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1340
Re: The Fundamental Problem
« Reply #20 on: January 24, 2019, 05:26:13 AM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
  a tendency to distrust or be skeptical 
What's wrong with being skeptical? If there were no liars, there would be no lies.
Oct 2, 1964 issue of Life magazine. ..."The Warren Report-Piecing Together the Evidence"
If the pieces didn't quite fit, that was OK. Just trim a little here and there. I just re-discovered another perplexing item. This was submitted as evidence in the Report...Why?

 

Marina was still a citizen of the USSR. She would not need a visa to return to the Soviet Union. She would need a visa to return to the USA if she did not obtain what is called 'advanced parole'. What about the daughter? The daughter would get to go. The daughter was a citizen of the Soviet Union...she was born in the USSR. There was an obvious charade going on there.

JFK Assassination Forum

Re: The Fundamental Problem
« Reply #20 on: January 24, 2019, 05:26:13 AM »

Offline Royell Storing

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1004
Re: The Fundamental Problem
« Reply #21 on: January 24, 2019, 05:28:54 AM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
I agree with you about the Single bullet strike not occurring at Z190 but since when do bullets not travel in straight lines through air?

       Obviously you were Never employed by the military as a sniper. Good thing.

Offline Dillon Rankine

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 113
Re: The Fundamental Problem
« Reply #22 on: January 24, 2019, 01:39:46 PM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
              As much as some of you would like to complicate/muddle the issue, it really is Very Simple. (1) The Autopsy Face Sheet has a dot on JFK's Back to show the location of the Back Wound. (2) The Autopsy Photo(s) display the JFK Back Wound/Where the wound is located. (3) The Back of JFK's Dress Coat has a bullet hole in it. (4) The Back of JFK's Dress Shirt has a bullet hole in it. All 4 of these pieces of evidence corroborate each other by displaying the JFK Back Wound in the Same Location on his back.  These 4 independent pieces of corroborating physical evidence leave no question as to the location of the JFK Back Wound.   

All those four data suggest is that JFK had a bullet in his back?nobody is disputing that. They aren?t specific to where. Exactly why you ignore the measurements and Speer?s experiment which indicate a wound closer to T1.   

JFK Assassination Forum

Re: The Fundamental Problem
« Reply #22 on: January 24, 2019, 01:39:46 PM »

Offline Dillon Rankine

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 113
Re: The Fundamental Problem
« Reply #23 on: January 24, 2019, 01:45:38 PM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
What's wrong with being skeptical?

Nothing inherently. Though I?m referring to an excessive and unhealthy variant directed solely at one?s opposition. The question of conspiracy is interesting to debate, though it is absolutely the case most CT claims are nonsense (e.g. the shallow back wound isn?t even physically possible).     

Offline Oscar Navarro

  • Sr. Member
  • ****

  • This Member Has Made
    A Forum Donation!
  • Posts: 463
Re: The Fundamental Problem
« Reply #24 on: January 24, 2019, 03:06:25 PM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Nothing inherently. Though I?m referring to an excessive and unhealthy variant directed solely at one?s opposition. The question of conspiracy is interesting to debate, though it is absolutely the case most CT claims are nonsense (e.g. the shallow back wound isn?t even physically possible).     

Hear, hear!! Thumb1: I would say 99% of the CTers claims are nonsense. The two that deserve some scrutiny are James T. Tague and Silvia Odio, with Tague being the most worthy of serious debate. I just can't figure out how in the heck Tague received a wound to his cheek from so far away.

JFK Assassination Forum

Re: The Fundamental Problem
« Reply #24 on: January 24, 2019, 03:06:25 PM »

Offline Royell Storing

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1004
Re: The Fundamental Problem
« Reply #25 on: January 24, 2019, 03:31:21 PM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Nothing inherently. Though I?m referring to an excessive and unhealthy variant directed solely at one?s opposition. The question of conspiracy is interesting to debate, though it is absolutely the case most CT claims are nonsense (e.g. the shallow back wound isn?t even physically possible).     

     How did you arrive at "the shallow back wound isn't even physically possible"?

Offline Walt Cakebread

  • Hero Member
  • *****

  • This Member Has Made
    A Forum Donation!
  • Posts: 2823
Re: The Fundamental Problem
« Reply #26 on: January 24, 2019, 03:44:09 PM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Nothing inherently. Though I?m referring to an excessive and unhealthy variant directed solely at one?s opposition. The question of conspiracy is interesting to debate, though it is absolutely the case most CT claims are nonsense (e.g. the shallow back wound isn?t even physically possible).     

most CT claims are nonsense (e.g. the shallow back wound isn?t even physically possible). 

IOW...Mr Dillon you believe a 6.5mm diameter bullet traveling at the velocity of around 2000 feet per second  would not be arrested and stopped completely by a mere two inches of flesh.    If that's what you intended to say you are absolutely right....   They idea  that JFK was struck in the back by a 6.5mm bullet   flying at 2000 fps but the bullet was arrested after just a couple of inches  is simply insane......

JFK Assassination Forum

Re: The Fundamental Problem
« Reply #26 on: January 24, 2019, 03:44:09 PM »

Offline Dillon Rankine

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 113
Re: The Fundamental Problem
« Reply #27 on: January 24, 2019, 04:01:57 PM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
     How did you arrive at "the shallow back wound isn't even physically possible"?

To answer both you and Walt, impact velocity is inversely related to chance of perforation (so lower velocity is associated with increased chance of going straight through). This is because the higher the velocity at which a missile travels, the greater chance it has of fragmenting (it?s kinetic energy surpasses what its own mass can take). The lower the velocity, the lower this likelihood. Even at half impact velocity, the 6.5 bullet would?ve still gone clean through Kennedy?s torso.

Walt?s suggestion that some alternative missile resulted the injury doesn?t stack up as we?d need to find something weak enough to only go through less than finger?s length of relatively soft muscle tissue, but somehow strong enough to leave ordinary bullet holes (in the back and clothing) and not be taken out by the wind.     

JFK Assassination Forum

Re: The Fundamental Problem
« Reply #27 on: January 24, 2019, 04:01:57 PM »

Offline Dillon Rankine

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 113
Re: The Fundamental Problem
« Reply #28 on: January 24, 2019, 04:06:34 PM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Hear, hear!! Thumb1: I would say 99% of the CTers claims are nonsense. The two that deserve some scrutiny are James T. Tague and Silvia Odio, with Tague being the most worthy of serious debate. I just can't figure out how in the heck Tague received a wound to his cheek from so far away.

For what it?s worth I think the most plausible explanation for the Tague hit is a fragment from the headshot.

Offline Royell Storing

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1004
Re: The Fundamental Problem
« Reply #29 on: January 24, 2019, 04:22:12 PM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
To answer both you and Walt, impact velocity is inversely related to chance of perforation (so lower velocity is associated with increased chance of going straight through). This is because the higher the velocity at which a missile travels, the greater chance it has of fragmenting (it?s kinetic energy surpasses what its own mass can take). The lower the velocity, the lower this likelihood. Even at half impact velocity, the 6.5 bullet would?ve still gone clean through Kennedy?s torso.

Walt?s suggestion that some alternative missile resulted the injury doesn?t stack up as we?d need to find something weak enough to only go through less than finger?s length of relatively soft muscle tissue, but somehow strong enough to leave ordinary bullet holes (in the back and clothing) and not be taken out by the wind.   

       Your assumption being the wound was caused by an intact 6.5 bullet.

JFK Assassination Forum

Re: The Fundamental Problem
« Reply #29 on: January 24, 2019, 04:22:12 PM »

 

Mobile View