| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
regicide
Joined: 01 Sep 2006
Location: United States
|
 Posted: Fri Mar 21, 2008 12:52 am Post subject: The Single Bullet Theory Exonerates Oswald |
 |
|
Alaric Rosman writes:
In discussing the Single Bullet (SB), the discussion has centred mainly on the medical evidence. The geometrical evidence has largely been ignored. Artistic illustrations exist in abundance, but not scaled drawings*.
A full geometrical analysis would involve angles and distances. However, I have discovered that the Single Bullet theory (SBt) can easily be disproved geometrically simply by concentrating on the LONGITUDINAL component of each of the angles.
I can prove that, given the basic data of the SBt, the bullet must have come into the car from one of two buildings, the Dal-Tex or the Records.
My argument goes as follows:-
http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=12506 |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
laogaiguk
Joined: 06 Dec 2005
Location: somewhere in Korea
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 21, 2008 2:11 am Post subject: |
|
|
| While not current, it's still an event. Please keep it down there. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
regicide
Joined: 01 Sep 2006
Location: United States
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 21, 2008 5:25 am Post subject: |
|
|
| laogaiguk wrote: |
| While not current, it's still an event. Please keep it down there. |
Off-Topic Forum
Forum for *off- topics* that do not fit in the other forums.
Quit your whining , move past the threads that you don't interest you
and most importantly -DONT RESPOND THUS BUMPING UP THE THREAD!
Real simple.
Pamela McElwain wrote:
Good paper, well-researched and thought out. You are discussing the Z223-4 single-bullet scenario, which, ironically was not developed until Posner and CC came out. The WC did not even try to pinpoint frames in the Z film, but simply provided a general range wherein a scenario could have taken place. In addition, the WC used incorrect limo data, so even their flawed thesis was carried out with flawed information. HSCA tried to place the sb scenario around Z190.
Therefore, anyone who tries to espouse any of the sb scenarios while lumping them all together is speaking incorrectly. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Tiberious aka Sparkles
Joined: 23 Jan 2003
Location: I'm one cool cat!
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
regicide
Joined: 01 Sep 2006
Location: United States
|
| Posted: Sat Mar 22, 2008 4:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
It is hard to be charismic when people act like stubborn idiots, but this guy can. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
cbclark4
Joined: 20 Aug 2006
Location: Masan
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 23, 2008 1:48 am Post subject: |
|
|
I think all the conspiracy wackos should post in the off topic forum what
could be more off topic than the ravings of the lunatic fringe.
theme song |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bacasper
Joined: 26 Mar 2007
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 23, 2008 6:47 am Post subject: |
|
|
| cbclark4 wrote: |
I think all the conspiracy wackos should post in the off topic forum what
could be more off topic than the ravings of the lunatic fringe.
theme song |
I'll remind you that those who believe the Warren Report are the ones on the fringe (19% vs. 81%), lunatic. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
DrunkenMaster
Joined: 04 Feb 2008
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 23, 2008 7:34 am Post subject: |
|
|
| bacasper wrote: |
| cbclark4 wrote: |
I think all the conspiracy wackos should post in the off topic forum what
could be more off topic than the ravings of the lunatic fringe.
theme song |
I'll remind you that those who believe the Warren Report are the ones on the fringe (19% vs. 81%), lunatic. |
There's no "undecided"? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bacasper
Joined: 26 Mar 2007
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 23, 2008 8:32 am Post subject: |
|
|
| DrunkenMaster wrote: |
| bacasper wrote: |
| cbclark4 wrote: |
I think all the conspiracy wackos should post in the off topic forum what
could be more off topic than the ravings of the lunatic fringe.
theme song |
I'll remind you that those who believe the Warren Report are the ones on the fringe (19% vs. 81%), lunatic. |
There's no "undecided"? |
Not in that poll there wasn't. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
regicide
Joined: 01 Sep 2006
Location: United States
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 23, 2008 2:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| DrunkenMaster wrote: |
| bacasper wrote: |
| cbclark4 wrote: |
I think all the conspiracy wackos should post in the off topic forum what
could be more off topic than the ravings of the lunatic fringe.
theme song |
I'll remind you that those who believe the Warren Report are the ones on the fringe (19% vs. 81%), lunatic. |
There's no "undecided"? |
cbclark4, it's time you came down off your high horse and admitted you might have made a mistake.
Anyone who is familiar with the evidence who does not conclude that JFK was killed as the result of a conspiracy is cognitively impaired or complicit in the crime.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ozx4_4DZp38
37th Anniversary of JFK Assassination in Dallas
Parkland Hospital Doctor Stands Firm on Entry Wound
Nearly 200 researchers of the assassination of President John F. Kennedy gathered in Dallas this past week for a research conference devoted to the presentation of discoveries about his untimely death. The meeting, which spanned three days, included lectures and symposia by some of the leading members of the assassination research community, including Peter Dale Scott, Noel Twyman, Ian Griggs, Stewart Galanor, Jim Marrs, George Michael Evica, and David W. Mantik, with a special appearance by Ronald Jones, M.D., an attending physician at Parkland.
During his presentation, Dr. Jones reported that his personal observations of the wounds the President sustained included a small round wound to the throat and a massive defect to the back of his head. It was his conclusion at that time that the wound to the throat was a wound of entry, an opinion which was shared by other Parkland physicans. At a press conference held that afternoon, for example, Malcolm Perry, M.D., asserted three times that the wound to the throat was a wound of entry. A transcript of that press conference may now be found in ASSASSINATION SCIENCE, edited by James H. Fetzer, conference co-chair.
Stewart Galanor, author of COVER-UP, elaborated some of the paradoxes of the assassination. One is that, since there is extensive evidence of the shot to the throat, while the Warren Commission concluded all the shots had been fired from behind, how could JFK have been shot from in front from behind? And since the trajectory of a head shot advanced by the Warren Commission, when properly oriented to correspond to the position of his head at the time of the shot as the Zapruder film displays, has an upward direction, how could JFK have been shot from below from above? He has elaborated these points in his recent book.
David W. Mantik, M.D., Ph.D., presented evidence that the official account of a shot that passed through the back of the President's neck and exited his throat without hitting any bony structures before impacting Governor John Connally and inflicting several wounds is anatomically impossible because, when the path it would have had to have taken is tracked from official point of entry to official point of exit on a scan of a neck with the dimensions of President Kennedy, it would have had to impact cervical verteba. He has discussed this finding along with studies demonstrating that the official autopsy X-rays have been fabricated by imposing a patch over the large defect to the back of the head on the lateral cranial X-ray and by adding a 6.5 mm metal object to the front-to-rear X-ray in ASSASSINATION SCIENCE, but his earlier discoveries have now been elabored further in a new book, MURDER IN DEALEY PLAZA, also edited by James H. Fetzer. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ya-ta Boy
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 23, 2008 3:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
is cognitively impaired or complicit in the crime.
|
Note how there is no room for 'undecided' in that set up. Typical of conspiracy theorists' thinking. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
yawarakaijin
Joined: 08 Aug 2006
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 23, 2008 4:42 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I'm not one for conspiracy theories and I'm totally confused by all the different premises offered for the assasination. I don't know how much of the file JFK was fabricated or not.
Can someone just answer me one question.
Did or do scientists believe that one bullet did all that damage? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
regicide
Joined: 01 Sep 2006
Location: United States
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 23, 2008 5:09 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| yawarakaijin wrote: |
I'm not one for conspiracy theories and I'm totally confused by all the different premises offered for the assasination. I don't know how much of the file JFK was fabricated or not.
Can someone just answer me one question.
Did or do scientists believe that one bullet did all that damage? |
This bullet: (CE399) from the National Archives? The so caller "stretcher bullet or magic bullet� Stretcher because it suddenly appeared on a stretcher in Parkland Hospital and thus has fails in chain of custody. Magic because it did extensive damage to two people and ended up unscathed.
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bacasper
Joined: 26 Mar 2007
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 23, 2008 5:17 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| yawarakaijin wrote: |
I'm not one for conspiracy theories and I'm totally confused by all the different premises offered for the assasination. I don't know how much of the file JFK was fabricated or not.
Can someone just answer me one question.
Did or do scientists believe that one bullet did all that damage? |
No. The vast majority of reputable scientists and forensic experts do not believe that a single bullet was responsible for so much damage to both Kennedy and Connally, including smashing the head of Connally's radius, one of the thickest bony structures in the body, and then emerged near pristine. A bullet striking just about any object becomes deformed. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bacasper
Joined: 26 Mar 2007
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 23, 2008 5:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Ya-ta Boy wrote: |
| Quote: |
is cognitively impaired or complicit in the crime.
|
Note how there is no room for 'undecided' in that set up. Typical of conspiracy theorists' thinking. |
And nitpicking is typical of those who reject overwhelming evidence to maintain their delusions of the official fiction. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
