Who killed President Kennedy

[RQA]

Originally Posted by Bearcat

Ah, last I checked F = M x A

That's it? That is all you know about the physics of colliding bodies?

Your ignorance is appalling (did I spell all of that correctly, Spart?)

Please explain the difference between inelastic and elastic collisions as well as the formula for kinetic energy and how all of that relates to the Z-film.

Until then, go back to the RCMB and continue your attempts at getting Brian Kelly hired

So you think something that weighs a few ounces traveling at a very high velocity can't move something weighing 15 pounds? Just shows how stupid you really are when it comes to physics

Didn't say that, but not surprising that you would either lie about it or more likely have not a clue as to what I meant.

So I guess (in your mind) a nuclear weapon that weighs a couple thousand pounds can't move something that weighs more than it does?

May be the stupidist thing ever posted in this long thread. That you even think this is some type of analogy for the movement of JFKs head is beyond stupid.

[MikeJohnson]

LBJ?He certanly benefited the most from the death of Kennedy. Nobody will ever know who shot Kennedy. We can guess all we want Lee Harvey Oswald, the CIA, LBJ, the commies, but nobody will ever know the truth.

[Leonidas]

Originally Posted by RQA

That's it? That is all you know about the physics of colliding bodies?

Your ignorance is appalling (did I spell all of that correctly, Spart?)

Please explain the difference between inelastic and elastic collisions as well as the formula for kinetic energy and how all of that relates to the Z-film.

Until then, go back to the RCMB and continue your attempts at getting Brian Kelly hired

Didn't say that, but not surprising that you would either lie about it or more likely have not a clue as to what I meant.

May be the stupidist thing ever posted in this long thread. That you even think this is some type of analogy for the movement of JFKs head is beyond stupid.

quite an explanation for someone who stated the below:

Quote:
Originally Posted by RQA
the strange physics is your belief that a 15 pound object can be violently moved by an object weighing a few ounces.
.



So what is it? It sure seems you're clearly stating that a 15 pound object can't be violently moved by something only weighing a few ounces

Boy are you ****ing stupid

[RQA]

Originally Posted by Bearcat

So what is it? It sure seems you're clearly stating that a 15 pound object can't be violently moved by something only weighing a few ounces

I am clearly stating that.

Boy are you ****ing stupid

Who is the stupid one? I am still waiting for your explanation about kinetic energy as it relates to the physics of colliding bodies. I suspect I will have quite a wait.

[RQA]

Originally Posted by MikeJohnson

LBJ?He certanly benefited the most from the death of Kennedy. Nobody will ever know who shot Kennedy. We can guess all we want Lee Harvey Oswald, the CIA, LBJ, the commies, but nobody will ever know the truth.

Hi Mike, welcome to the board.

The truth is actually easy to see. Simply review the vast amount of evidence in the case that only leads to one conclusion. That is, that LHO is the only killer.

If you are interested I could point you to a few objective works that clarify the issues.

RQA

[Lochgelly]

Originally Posted by RQA

Hi Mike, welcome to the board.

The truth is actually easy to see. Simply review the vast amount of evidence in the case that only leads to one conclusion. That is, that LHO is the only killer.

If you are interested I could point you to a few objective works that clarify the issues.

RQA

Of course Lee Harvey Oswald shot Kennedy....the question is did he also get hit from the right front ? I say of course he did...its plain as day on the Zapruder film...and...don't forget this...Oswald said.."I'm just the patsy."

Why would he say that if he was this weirdo lone gunman hell bent to make a name for himself because he wanted to feel important?.....the answer is ...he wouldn't....

[Leonidas]

Originally Posted by RQA

I am clearly stating that.


.

Than you're clearly stupid!

[RQA]

Originally Posted by Bearcat

Than you're clearly stupid!

Then it should be easy to prove me wrong.

Please calculate for me the velocity required for something weighing a few ounces to violently move an object weighing over 10 pounds.

Please include your work as well as an estimate of the kinetic energy involved.

I will be waiting.

[Leonidas]

Originally Posted by RQA

Then it should be easy to prove me wrong.

Please calculate for me the velocity required for something weighing a few ounces to violently move an object weighing over 10 pounds.

Please include your work as well as an estimate of the kinetic energy involved.

I will be waiting.

The awesome (and frightening) power of a hydrogen bomb results from converting just a few ounces of matter into energy, according to E=mc2

Do you think that could move a 10 pound bowling violently?

[RQA]

Originally Posted by Bearcat

The awesome (and frightening) power of a hydrogen bomb results from converting just a few ounces of matter into energy, according to E=mc2

Do you think that could move a 10 pound bowling violently?

mmmm....so you are equating the stored energy in a hydrogen bomb to the kinetic energy of a relatively small caliber bullet? Please tell me that you never took any science classes at MSU

[Leonidas]

Originally Posted by RQA

mmmm....so you are equating the stored energy in a hydrogen bomb to the kinetic energy of a relatively small caliber bullet? Please tell me that you never took any science classes at MSU

Originally Posted by RQA

Then it should be easy to prove me wrong.

Please calculate for me the velocity required for something weighing a few ounces to violently move an object weighing over 10 pounds.

Hmm, don't see a small calibre bullet mentioned ANYWHERE in the above

BTW, it was very easy to prove you wrong!

[RQA]

Originally Posted by Bearcat

Hmm, don't see a small calibre bullet mentioned ANYWHERE in the above

Oh, I'm sorry. It seems I have stumbled across the bowling ball thread instead of the JFK thread.

BTW, it was very easy to prove you wrong!

Sorry pal, didn't happen.

You will have proven me wrong when I see your calculations as to the energy required to violently move a human head, given potential losses of kinetic energy in an inelastic or elastic collision. I am leaving it to you to explain the difference (for extra credit)

I continue to wait for your answer.

[Leonidas]

Originally Posted by RQA

Then it should be easy to prove me wrong.

Please calculate for me the velocity required for something weighing afew ounces to violently move an object weighing over 10 pounds.

It was very easy to prove you wrong, E=mc² !

I gave you the answer, proved you wrong and now own you!

[RQA]

Your answer to this:

Originally Posted by RQA

Please calculate for me the velocity required for something weighing a few ounces to violently move an object weighing over 10 pounds.

Please include your work as well as an estimate of the kinetic energy involved.

is this?

Originally Posted by leocat

It was very easy to prove you wrong, E=mc² !

[Leonidas]

Originally Posted by RQA

Your answer to this:



is this?

Yeap, you're so dumb you can't even figure it out!

You're owned!

Please refute my answer That a few ounces of plutonium, won't violently move a 10 pound object

[RQA]

Originally Posted by Bearcat

Yeap, you're so dumb you can't even figure it out!

You're owned!

Please refute my answer That a few ounces of plutonium, won't violently move a 10 pound object

Refute your answer?

Easy. A few ounces of plutonium will not violently move a 10 pound object.

A few ounces is not even close to the critical mass needed to cause an explosion.

Game, set and match, my friend.

P.S. If you are going to claim otherwise, please reference for us the amount of plutonium in the smallest nuc ever exploded.

[Leonidas]

Originally Posted by RQA

Refute your answer?

Easy. A few ounces of plutonium will not violently move a 10 pound object.

A few ounces is not even close to the critical mass needed to cause an explosion.

Game, set and match, my friend.

P.S. If you are going to claim otherwise, please reference for us the amount of plutonium in the smallest nuc ever exploded.

So you are absolutely 100% certain that a few ounces of plutonium does not have enough kinectic energy to move a 10 pound object?



What moron

[RQA]

This reminds me of the Seinfeld episode where Kramer is explaining to Jerry how the post office will "write off" his damaged stereo.

Jerry replies: "You don't even know what a write-off is"
Kramer: "But they do and they are the ones writing it off"

Originally Posted by Bearcat

So you are absolutely 100% certain that a few ounces of plutonium does not have enough kinectic energy to move a 10 pound object?



What moron

You don't even know what kinetic energy is.

Too bad for you, that I do, and I am the one making you look like a fool


(FYI: critical mass for plutonium is much more than a few ounces. RTGs produce electricity with a smaller amount, if you are going to claim that a
RTG with a few ounces of plutonium could violently move a 10 lb object please show your calculations)

[The Truth Hurts]

Originally Posted by RQA

You don't even know what kinetic energy is.

PLUTONIUM ISOTOPES Pu-240/effect of compound nucleus state on fragment mass and kinetic energy distributions from neutron fission of plutonium-239 at 0.001 to 1.0 eV, (E);FISSION FRAGMENTS/mass distributions from plutonium-239 neutron fission at 0.001 to 1.0 eV, effect of plutonium-240 compound nucleus state on, (E);PLUTONIUM ISOTOPES Pu-239/neutron fission at 0.001 to 1.0 eV, effects of plutonium-240 compound nucleus state on fragment mass and kinetic energy distributions from, (E);FISSION FRAGMENTS/energy distributions from plutonium-239 neutron fission at 0.001 to 1.0 eV, effect of plutonium-240 compound nucleus state on, (E);PLUTONIUM ISOTOPES Pu-239/energy levels at 0.297 eV and negative energy, average total kinetic energy of fragments from plutonium-239 neutron fission at 0.001 to 1.0 eV for parity and spin of, (E);NEUTRONS/reactions (n,f) with plutonium-239 at 0.001 to 1.0 eV, effect of plutonium-240 compound nucleus state on fragment mass and kinetic energy distributions from, (E)

[RQA]

Leo/BC/unTruth,

You continue to amaze me, but not in a good way!

You google "plutonium + kinetic energy" and find reference to a scientific article published in 1971. You cut from the abstract the "related subjects" citation and paste in here as if it was the explanation to your failed claim What you posted is a simple list of related topics to that paper. It means NOTHING! It proves NOTHING. It is a simple list, not a series of calculations as you apparently believe

[Leonidas]

Originally Posted by RQA

Refute your answer?

Easy. A few ounces of plutonium will not violently move a 10 pound object.

A few ounces is not even close to the critical mass needed to cause an explosion.

Game, set and match, my friend.

P.S. If you are going to claim otherwise, please reference for us the amount of plutonium in the smallest nuc ever exploded.

Who said you need an nuclear explosion?

[RQA]

Originally Posted by Bearcat

Who said you need an nuclear explosion?

Ahhh...you did..............

Originally Posted by Bearcat

The awesome (and frightening) power of a hydrogen bomb results from converting just afew ounces of matter into energy, according to E=mc2

Do you think that could move a 10 pound bowling violently?

[RQA]

This thread deserves a post today.

J.F.K.’s Death, Re-Framed

By MAX HOLLAND and JOHANN RUSH
Published: November 22, 2007
FORTY-FOUR years ago today, a clothing company owner named Abraham Zapruder filmed the assassination of John F. Kennedy in Dallas. And for 44 years, most people have presumed that his home movie captured the assassination in its entirety. This presumption has led to deep misunderstandings.
Skip to next paragraph Enlarge This Image
National Archives and Records Adminstration


Related

Times Topics: John Fitzgerald Kennedy


The majority of witnesses in Dealey Plaza heard three shots fired. Lawmen found three cartridges in Lee Harvey Oswald’s nest on the sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository. Yet Zapruder’s film captured only two shots clearly. As a result, the film has been scoured for evidence of another shot, presumably the first one fired at the president. Research has yielded contradictory findings.
But what if Zapruder simply hadn’t turned on his camera in time?
Zapruder’s 26-second movie has two distinct parts. Approximately seven seconds after he started filming from the north side of Elm Street, Zapruder stopped his Bell & Howell Zoomatic at frame 132 because only Dallas police motorcycles were driving by. He did not restart his camera until the president’s limousine was clearly in view. Consequently, Z 133 is the first frame to actually show the president’s Lincoln — a frame exposed several seconds after the car had made the sharp turn onto Elm Street from Houston Street — and, we believe, after Oswald had squeezed off his first shot.
Several witnesses saw a man firing from the sixth floor. No one’s recollection about the first shot was more precise, though, than that of a ninth grader named Amos L. Euins. He told the Dallas County sheriff, “About the time the car got near the black and white sign, I heard a shot.” As the above photograph from a December 1963 restaging shows, the president’s limousine would have passed a black and white sign before Zapruder restarted his camera (the ghost image here approximates the location of the Lincoln at the moment Zapruder started filming again).
If one discards the notion that Zapruder recorded the shooting sequence in full, it has the virtue of solving several puzzles that have consistently defied explanation. The most exasperating one is how did Oswald, who was able to hit President Kennedy in his upper back at a distance of around 190 feet, and then in the head at a distance of 265 feet, manage to miss so badly on the first and closest shot?
A first shot earlier than anyone has ever posited gives a plausible answer. About 1.4 seconds before Zapruder restarted filming, a horizontal traffic mast extending over Elm Street temporarily obscured Oswald’s view of his target. That mast was never examined during any of the official investigations. Yet if this mast deflected the first shot, that would surely explain why the bullet missed not only the president, but the whole limousine. Significantly, the highway sign cited by Amos Euins was just a few feet west of the traffic light’s vertical post in 1963.
In May 1964, with the help of surveyors, the Warren Commission first considered the idea that a shot could have been fired before Zapruder restarted his camera. The commission later heard testimony that included references to what the staff labeled “Position A.” It did not appear on the Zapruder film, but represented the “first point at which a person in the sixth-floor window of the book building ... could have gotten a shot at the president after the car had rounded the corner.”
If the commission had followed up this insight, it would have conceivably been able to describe the duration and intervals of the shooting sequence: that Oswald fired three shots in approximately 11.2 seconds, with intervals of 6.3 seconds and 4.9 seconds between the shots.
Why would this have mattered? Because the lack of a clear explanation for the shooting sequence was a key reason the Warren Report fell into disrepute.
And why has it taken so long to realize that the assassination and the Zapruder film are not one and the same? Part of the answer lies in the power of the film itself. As the critic Richard B. Woodward wrote in The Times in 2003, the assassination became “fused with one representation, so much so that Kennedy’s death is virtually unimaginable without Zapruder’s film.” To that, one has to add the element of distraction. The Warren Commission did not pursue its May 1964 insight because it was fixated not on the shot that missed but on the ones that killed the president.
If this belated revelation changes nothing from one perspective — Oswald still did it — it simultaneously changes everything, if only because it disrupts the state of mind of everyone who has ever been transfixed by the Zapruder film. The film, we realize, does not depict an assassination about to commence. It shows one that had already started.
Max Holland is the author of “The Kennedy Assassination Tapes.” Johann Rush, a television photographer, filmed Lee Harvey Oswald demonstrating in August 1963.

[EComCon]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2CMF6AcGvuU

Real History Blog: Max Holland's Weird "Science"

Max Holland is at it again, trying to "solve" the Kennedy assassination and "prove" that Oswald was the only actor in that drama. But to do so, he literally perverts all scientific technique.

When conducting an investigation, I think we can all agree on the following:

You find a conclusion that fits the facts.
You don't change the facts to fit the conclusion..

YouTube - The Kilduff Announcement

YouTube - JFK SECRET SERVICE

Conversation » Howard Hunt says he was just a “benchwarmer” in CIA murder of JFK
Amazon.com: History Will Not Absolve Us : Orwellian Control, Public Denial, & the Murder of President Kennedy: Books: E. Martin Schotz
Octafish's Journal - Regarding JFK Assassination—Who do You Trust: Poppy Bush or Your Own Eyes?
Dallas 2005
Why they murdered JFK JR
John F. Kennedy Jr.

The Assassination of JFK Jr. (2 of 4)

YouTube - Bill Maher | January 25 2008 | Part Six

The MadCow Morning News| JFK - HeavensGate - 9/11

History Matters Archive - 11-25-63 Katzenbach to Moyers, pg
FBI JFK Assassination File (62-109060)
House Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA) - The Education Forum

YouTube - HSCA - 1976

YouTube - The HSCA's big lie

House Select Committee on Assassinations
The Existentialist Cowboy: "When the government murders truth"
CIA Still Stonewalls on JFK Mystery Man - The Washington Independent - U.S. news and politics - washingtonindependent.com

[RQA]

Originally Posted by EComCon

Real History Blog: Max Holland's Weird "Science"

YouTube - The Kilduff Announcement

YouTube - JFK SECRET SERVICE

I will keep it simple for you.

1. This has nothing to do with the "scientific method". Does your source know what the scientific method is? Do you know? I doubt it.

2. One needs to go no farther then the claim that Oswald couldn't have made the shots in time. Only a nut would continue to make this bogus claim decades after it was disproven.

Always reminds of Dr. Latimer, a world authority on both the Kennedy and Lincoln assassinations, who made 3 shots in the time suggested by the Z-film and then turned to the camera and said: "And I am an 80 year-old man!"

Your post is discredited before it even starts.

Next......................