Discussion in 'Conspiracy Theories' started by fonestar, Jul 22, 2013.
Let's agree on the basics. The melon moves towards the gun, right?
If I walked up and shot a melon at point blank range maybe it would go towards me and maybe away from me. If I was below the melon and shot it, perhaps the force would tip it towards me. If I was shooting above the melon and hit the top of it, it would likely fall away from me. If I was square dead-center with a melon and shot it in the center at the same height as my rifle barrel it would fly away from me. If I shot a melon with a .223 it may not move. If I shot a melon with a .50 BMG it would explode.
Again, a melon is hardly a good choice to examine the kinetic forces at play when a human head is shot from an unknown angle and distance.
But we are trying to establish otu baseline agreement here. You originally said there were no exceptions, so are you changing your position a bit?
Not at all am I changing my position. Nice try though. If you push a tipsy object it is going to fall in the direction it is weighted towards. If you shoot a solid, grounded object it will fly away from you and the projectile. I think that's pretty self evident what I am saying here.
So why does the melon here not fly away from the shooter? Why does it move towards the shooter?
The question is why you think this is what anyone is saying? It's a strawman you can attack with derision that does not represent anyone's position here.
And why do you suggest no-one here believes conspiracies exist? They simply examine what evidence there are for the ones that are suggested. If there is no evidence then it's not their fault.
(A thread on the 9-11 insurance claims would be interesting)
Let us not forget Newton's 3rd Law.
Why is it called 'backwards' when it moves towards the gun? I would call that forwards.
Let's just call it "towards the gun" to avoid confusion.
The problem with Newton's laws is that they are idealized laws for point masses, and are not that useful in describing what happens in a complex elastic system that is in contact with other systems.
The melon here moves towards the gun. So the fact that Kennedy's head moves towards Oswald is not evidence that someone other than Oswald fired that shot.
Exactly. Just pointing out that if the President moved away from the shooter then the shooter would need to move in the opposite direction with equal force. Anyone who has shot a rifle knows you do not fly back when you shoot it.
Skip ahead to 6:50
The problem is that you are not even addressing the point of the video I am talking about. If you watch the entire Zapruder film you will see (a few frames after the segment you posted) Kennedy's head is flung backwards so violently it is up over the rear of the seat. That is the part where Jackie begins to scramble towards the back of the car.
It looks like Kennedy may be hit three times from three different directions. The rear at first which also strikes Connally, then from one side and then the final shot from the front only milliseconds later. Again, triangulation as taught and practiced by professional assassins.
He does not really move that much more than the animation I posted.
But your original point was:
So the basic question here is if moving towards the direction of a projectile is impossible. The melon test show it is not. Other evidence shows that people don't actually move that much as the result of such a small amount of kinetic energy hitting them.
The real evidence of where the bullet came from is the spray of blood.
Watch the Zapruder film. Anyone can see Kennedy's head is blow backwards almost immediately after your clip ends. You deliberately posted that clip instead of the entire video for a reason. The entire Zapruder film indicates a massive impact wound directed from the front.
Your melon test only proves you are capable of putting up straw men and distractions, not debating facts.
No it doesn't, I have seen that tape for longer than most. Since I live in Dallas and was in grade school when it happened.
His body moves back for a few frames more. But since a bullet would not have done that, then it's kind of irrelevant.
You've shot living things before. Here's a thought experiment: what if you were to shoot something that was dead?
Meaning - how much of the movement of the thing you shoot is muscle spasms, and how much is the force of the bullet?
Did you watch the mythbusters video, above?
So in order for your theory to stand up the film must have been altered. The spray of blood/matter is definitely from the front of JFK's head so the shot must have come from behind.
Using the technology of the time it would seem to be impossible to produce a realistic image with editing.
Where did you find this nugget of information? Did you study at your local "Centre for the Removal by Assassination of Presidents (C.R.A.P)?
As you are presenting your own shooting experiences as evidence.....how many human heads have you shot at the same distances and angles as the JFK assassination?
Sorry, but your whole theory is based on movie physics.
Does living in Dallas give you some special insight?
This is confirmed method of taking out targets as practiced and documented by OSS since WWII. [...] If you want the maximum chance of taking out a target you don't leave it to a single gunman shooting at a distance. You hit the target from multiple angles ensuring a kill.
[Admin: post edited for politeness]
Any documentation to back up this theory?
"Any documentation to back up this theory?"
This is pretty standard knowledge for those trained in assassination of moving targets. Now, do you need documented evidence that the tires on my car are really round? Because you know, without such evidence it's only a "theory". If you have no knowledge or nothing to contribute why are you on the thread?
So in other words, no you don't have anything to back up your theory.
"So in other words, no you don't have anything to back up your theory."
Yes, I do. Both experimental, logical and from what I have read and studied on the case. [...]
24 Hour ban to fonestar for repeated rudeness.
You're rude! With that said, please provide this evidence so we can review it.
Don't bother banning me... I'm out. I have military training, vast shooting experience and am familiar with various weapons systems. I don't need to prove "theories" about my relevant experience to you. Face it, you don't "debunk" anything here. You practice classic disinfo tactics, trying to divert the issue and create distractions. If such things were permitted in civil trials, every one would end in a hung jury or mistrial.
The amount of "conspiracy theories" (as you call them) as circulating online are a direct and proportional representation of the people's faith in their government and institutions. That is to say, nil (as reflected in viewership ratings of the major propaganda channels). Like I said, one day there will be justice both for Mr. Kennedy and Mr. Oswald and history will exonerate him of guilt. That will be done by people who actually possess genuine scientific faculty and intellectual honesty. In otherwords, more than I can say for this forum and it's members. You do the name of science no justice by servile boot-licking and state-worship. This site already seems to have gained a reputation as somewhat of an online joke from what I have read.
Sorry you feel that way. I'd like to drill down to the actual physics here behind the head shot and the body movement, because there seem to be several misunderstandings about what is going on. You have to be polite about it though, and honestly open to focusing on a claim to determine it's accuracy, rahter than just glossing over with your own feelings about the claim.
This isn't a trial. It's a simple question on if the motion of the head has significance, and if it does, then what is the significance.
Kennedy, Gulf of Tonkin, Watergate, Iran Contra, Clinton murders, fake WMD claims, fake Bin Laden take-out, Seal Team 6, fast and furious, Benghazi, NSA Prism. This is basically a trial and your defendant has absolutely no credibility left. None. You are a group applogizing for known criminals, murderers and bonafide liars.
No, we are debunkers, just trying to get the facts straight.
You seem to be acting more like an advocate, trying to argue a position without concern for the actual facts.
Truth is important. Not something you can sweep under the rug when it disagrees with your theory.
Say what you will. People are not stupid. A vast amount of energy has been devoted trying to reallocate the lies of the status-quo and their failing media-deception-machine from cable TV to the public internet. It's not really going well for them, is it? We're not scared of your "conspiracy theorist" labels. It worked years ago, doesn't work now. The onus is on you to prove anything the government and media channels have asserted has any validity to it. Whether any evidence put forth can be scientifically verified as legitimate.
Truth is important. We won't find truth until these criminal governments have been exposed, put on trial and imprisoned. People in professional vocations would do well to think about how their image, their CV will be interpreted in twenty years time.
A lot of people may believe in bunk but that doesn't change the fact that it is bunk!
You made a claim about the motion of Kennedy's head and body, so you should be the one to back that up and provide evidence for that claim.
I demonstrated with the watermelon that a bullet fired into a head does not necessarily impart forward motion into the head. The Mythbusters experiments show that a body being shot does not throw that body backwards (they had to used a .50 into a steel plate on his chest to get any significant movement). Other recreations show very little motion of head or body.
So the science here seems to indicate that you can't tell anything about the source of the gunshot from the motion of a head or body. So your claim is bunk.
Does that demonstrate who killed JFK? Of course not. It just debunks that one claim. It does not disprove the multiple gunman theory, it just removes one piece of claimed evidence.
"A lot of people may believe in bunk but that doesn't change the fact that it is bunk!"
Sound to me like the [people] that believe a gullible dupe fired an inacurate WW2 rifle striking the president and Connally (with magic bullets) at distances near 100M. A weapon that even the govenment claims takes 2.3 seconds to cycle. If you believe in the lone gunman theory, you're [wrong]
[Admin: politeness edits]
And you will need more than your opinion to sway most peoples thoughts on this forum.
IF you'd like to discuss the 2.3 seconds cycling claim, then please start a new thread.
"And you will need more than your opinion to sway most peoples thoughts on this forum."
Sure! If you can provide me with *any* reason why *anyone* would treat US Govermnet claims on *anything* with any seriousness in the year 2013 I would be happy to reciprocate the favour! You see, faith and credibility are fickle things and you've been running on E for a very, very long time now.
I don't need to trust any government claim, only physics.
Separate names with a comma.