Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by janrinok on Saturday April 28 2018, @09:35PM   Printer-friendly
from the too-late dept.

According to a new analysis,

[...] In this paper, simple one-dimensional dynamical models are uniquely applied to study in detail the fatal shot and the motion of the President's head observed in the film. Using known parameters from the crime scene, explicit force calculations are carried out for determining the projectile's retardation during tissue passage along with the resulting transfer of momentum and kinetic energy (KE). The computed instantaneous KE transfer within the soft tissue is found to be consistent with the formation of a temporary cavity associated with the observed explosion of the head, and subsequent quantitative examination of this phenomenon reveals two delayed forces at play in the backward motion of the President following impact. It is therefore found that the observed motions of President Kennedy in the film are physically consistent with a high-speed projectile impact from the rear of the motorcade, these resulting from an instantaneous forward impulse force, followed by delayed rearward recoil and neuromuscular forces.

janrinok: Be prepared for some detailed mathematical proofs, but well within the abilities of our community, and some interesting deductions.


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Sunday April 29 2018, @12:17PM (3 children)

    by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Sunday April 29 2018, @12:17PM (#673370) Journal

    And, eyewitnesses are notoriously unreliable. Someone saw Oswald while the shooting was happening? That means that the witness HEARD THE SHOOTING, while looking at Oswald. So, why was he looking at Oswald, while there was shooting going on?

    I think that those witnesses did probably see Oswald in the cafeteria, but timing played tricks on their minds. They had no idea that Oswald was a suspect, until after the fact. At the time that they heard about Oswald, and that he was a suspect, THEN they put various data together, remembering that they saw Oswald.

    The mind does play tricks on people.

    IF, there had been a number of law enforcement officers in the cafeteria at the time of the the shooting, who all vouched for the fact that Oswald was in the cafeteria at that time, THEN, I would give them some credibility. Of course, that depends on what kind of LEO's they were. Two or three city cops, or county sheriffs whose total time in service amounted to a year or two would have less credibility than a dozen officers, with decades of service distributed among the FBI, ATF, state police, and city/county police. Note that I don't make any mention of the DEA - those are about the least trustworthy LEO's in the nation, discounting some very corrupt cities.

    Training and experience count for a lot when it comes to keeping facts straight. My own mind has tricked me a few times. Example?

    I witnessed an auto accident. Out of one vehicle, one white guy exited. Out of the other vehicle, a black man exited first, a black woman exited second, and a black child followed the woman out of the car. When the cop arrived, and questioned me, I initially told him that the white guy was driving the white car, and the black guy was driving the red car. As the conversation proceeded, I realized that I was wrong. The black guy exited the car first, but he had to do so from the passenger side - the white car was up against the driver's side door of the red car.

    I tricked myself into a stupid mistake. Fortunately, I realized my mistake, and corrected it. The black guy had a suspended driver's license, and would have been arrested if he had been driving.

    Oh yeah - the white guy was at fault. Dumbass drove straight out of a side street without stopping, almost drove into the median and a set of railroad tracks, jerked his wheel, did a U-turn, and drove straight out into traffic again.

    Eyewitnesses are simply notorious for making mistakes.

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   2  
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 29 2018, @07:11PM (1 child)

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 29 2018, @07:11PM (#673459)

    That means that the witness HEARD THE SHOOTING

    First, I said witnesses.
    Must you twist EVERYTHING that doesn't match the Reactionary narrative inside your head?

    Next, NO, that's not what it means at all.
    Everyone knew when they ate lunch.
    They correlated that time with later reports of what time the shooting took place.
    That was around 12:30 Central Time, when most folks are eating lunch.

    IF, there had been a number of law enforcement officers in the cafeteria

    You needn't prove yet again what an Authoritarian Reactionary you are.
    We've all known for quite some time.

    -- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]

    • (Score: 1, Troll) by Runaway1956 on Monday April 30 2018, @02:40AM

      by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Monday April 30 2018, @02:40AM (#673575) Journal

      Sometimes, you prove yourself to be dumber than a rock, dude. You failed to notice that I distinguished between several different qualities of cops.

      Are you even aware that a lot of police get extensive training in taking note of details? Details that may or may not be trivial, yet turn out to be important?

      Most local cops arrive at an accident, and they make some mental note that there are some skid marks on the road surface. Most STATE COPS arrive, secure the scene, then begin MEASURING those skid marks. Training, and attention to detail actually make or break cases, every day.

      And, I repeat - eyewitnesses are notoriously unreliable. Try reading - https://duckduckgo.com/?q=eyewitnesses+notoriously+unreliable&atb=v104-5_b&ia=web [duckduckgo.com]

      http://agora.stanford.edu/sjls/Issue%20One/fisher&tversky.htm [stanford.edu]

      The Problem with Eyewitness Testimony

      a talk by

      Barbara Tversky, Professor of Psychology

      and

      George Fisher, Professor of Law

      Laura Engelhardt

          Stanford Law School, April 5, 1999. In a presentation sponsored by the Stanford Journal of Legal Studies, George Fisher placed Barbara Tversky’s research on memory fallibility into the context of police investigations and jury verdicts, discussing the relevance of such research to our system of justice.
         

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 29 2018, @07:16PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 29 2018, @07:16PM (#673463)

    OK, eds, if nothing else, this:

    Oh yeah - the white guy was at fault. Dumbass drove straight

    is a reason not to post JFK conspiracy stories. They bring out the Oliver Stone in Runaway1956.