Users Currently Browsing This Topic:
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Author Topic: Newsweek: A new study has debunked a long-held JFK assassination conspiracy theo  (Read 5111 times)

Offline Joe Elliott

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 298

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

 So you are not actually arguing physics if you are arguing for a spasm



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.

JFK Assassination Forum


Offline Matt Grantham

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 803
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

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.

 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

Offline Joe Elliott

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 298

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

 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.



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.
« Last Edit: May 01, 2018, 03:51:21 AM by Joe Elliott »

JFK Assassination Forum


Offline Matt Grantham

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 803
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

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.

 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

Offline Joe Elliott

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 298

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

 Try to be accurate please I cited Szamboti refuting Alvarez so lets not couch in terms that I know better than Alvarez



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.

JFK Assassination Forum


Offline Matt Grantham

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 803
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

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.

 Way to continue with your false ad hominem frame of me against the experts The jets effect occurs with jets which is an independent additive force of a potential energy within the object being struck You do have common sense against you eh Or are you just going to deny the standard of physics and forensics Are you really suggesting forensic scientists do not first assume blood splatter and tissue move in the direction of the shot?


 Alarez's nbel is is in elementary particles by the way
« Last Edit: May 01, 2018, 05:25:07 AM by Matt Grantham »

Offline Joe Elliott

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 298

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

 Way to continue with your false ad hominem frame of me against the experts The jets effect occurs with jets which is an independent additive force of a potential energy within the object being struck You do have common sense against you eh


So far, you have refused to deal with a point I made earlier. That most CTers who make the argue ?The head motion explained by a shot from the back defies the laws of physics?, had never taken even a high school course in physics.

Question:

Does this apply to you? Did you take a high school course in physics?


I suspect you didn?t because your teacher, if he was a good one, would have told you that common sense is a poor predictor of what will happen in the real world. ?Common Sense? will tell you that a taped melon shot by a rifle won?t move back toward the shooter. Only real-world experiments will show that actually can happen and reveal that melons can and do fly back toward the rifle. In any case my high school teacher told me specifically not to rely on common sense to figure out what will happen in certain cases.



You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

Or are you just going to deny the standard of physics and forensics Are you really suggesting forensic scientists do not first assume blood splatter and tissue move in the direction of the shot?


I do not suggest that forensic scientists do not assume that blood splatter and tissue move in the direction of the shot. It?s only you and other CTers who ignore this.

Take another look at z313:



The blood mess is ahead of JFK?s head, correct? It is clearly being propelled forward.


Question: This clearly shows a shot from the back. Correct?


If this is showing material being propelled backwards, why doesn?t it appear behind JFK?s head?



You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

Alarez's nbel is is in elementary particles by the way


Yes, but unlike you, he also had a firm understanding of Newtonian Physics. And he also knew how to spell ?Nobel?. And ?Alvarez?.

JFK Assassination Forum


Offline Matt Grantham

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 803
 Well since you are apparently well versed in Newtonian physics why not offer some insight into your take on the law of conservation of momentum Do objects struck by projectile react in accord with the force of the projectile If you want to add some proviso of how the jet theory can effect the law at a given circumstance then explain the nature of those exceptions

 313 offers very little in determining where the majority of tissue is heading He has a large blob virtually at his head and two streams coming off at a diagonal fashion slightly forward. Those two streams seem like a likely deflection from the skull from a bullet in either direction. I have never said the Z film shows definitive evidence in regard to the tissue blown out moving backwards I brought up the tissue question because if one is to say the conservation of momentum plays a role then it needs to be applied in a consistent manner
« Last Edit: May 01, 2018, 08:10:27 PM by Matt Grantham »

JFK Assassination Forum


 

Mobile View