BOZ
2018-05-06 19:05:52 UTC
Discussion:
(too old to reply)
bigdog
2018-05-08 01:38:46 UTC
The Hagues are always meticulous in their approach to the evidence and
controlled experiments. They do an outstanding job of dispelling so many
of the myths regarding the assassination. I was hoping they would delve
more into why Oswald's first shot might have missed but after thinking
about it, that's a matter of conjecture which is not what they do. It's
not something that can be proven experimentally. My own feeling is that
first shot was by far the most awkward since the target was moving around
a 110 degree turn just prior to the shot making tracking difficult and
firing directly downward would make it a cross shot. In addition, Oswald
probably would have had to raise up our of either a kneeling or sitting
position which would make steadying the rifle more difficult. The reason
for the missed shot is left to educated guesses but I've given mine.
controlled experiments. They do an outstanding job of dispelling so many
of the myths regarding the assassination. I was hoping they would delve
more into why Oswald's first shot might have missed but after thinking
about it, that's a matter of conjecture which is not what they do. It's
not something that can be proven experimentally. My own feeling is that
first shot was by far the most awkward since the target was moving around
a 110 degree turn just prior to the shot making tracking difficult and
firing directly downward would make it a cross shot. In addition, Oswald
probably would have had to raise up our of either a kneeling or sitting
position which would make steadying the rifle more difficult. The reason
for the missed shot is left to educated guesses but I've given mine.
Anthony Marsh
2018-05-09 14:40:17 UTC
Post by bigdog
The Hagues are always meticulous in their approach to the evidence and
controlled experiments. They do an outstanding job of dispelling so many
of the myths regarding the assassination. I was hoping they would delve
more into why Oswald's first shot might have missed but after thinking
about it, that's a matter of conjecture which is not what they do. It's
not something that can be proven experimentally. My own feeling is that
You can't prove it, but you can rule some things in or out.The Hagues are always meticulous in their approach to the evidence and
controlled experiments. They do an outstanding job of dispelling so many
of the myths regarding the assassination. I was hoping they would delve
more into why Oswald's first shot might have missed but after thinking
about it, that's a matter of conjecture which is not what they do. It's
not something that can be proven experimentally. My own feeling is that
Post by bigdog
first shot was by far the most awkward since the target was moving around
a 110 degree turn just prior to the shot making tracking difficult and
firing directly downward would make it a cross shot. In addition, Oswald
probably would have had to raise up our of either a kneeling or sitting
position which would make steadying the rifle more difficult. The reason
for the missed shot is left to educated guesses but I've given mine.
first shot was by far the most awkward since the target was moving around
a 110 degree turn just prior to the shot making tracking difficult and
firing directly downward would make it a cross shot. In addition, Oswald
probably would have had to raise up our of either a kneeling or sitting
position which would make steadying the rifle more difficult. The reason
for the missed shot is left to educated guesses but I've given mine.
mainframetech
2018-05-08 23:25:15 UTC
Simulations like animations always show what the author wants to show.
Chris
Chris
bigdog
2018-05-09 23:16:43 UTC
If you have a problem with their methodology, why don't you point out
their flaws?
their flaws?
Jason Burke
2018-05-10 19:32:22 UTC
Post by bigdog
If you have a problem with their methodology, why don't you point out
their flaws?
The "flaws" are that Chris is holding his hands above his ears andIf you have a problem with their methodology, why don't you point out
their flaws?
saying "la, la, la, I am not listening".
Anthony Marsh
2018-05-11 17:50:27 UTC
Post by Jason Burke
saying "la, la, la, I am not listening".
And you close your eyes so that you don't have to look at the evidence.Post by bigdog
their flaws?
The "flaws" are that Chris is holding his hands above his ears and Simulations like animations always show what the author wants to
show.
If you have a problem with their methodology, why don't you point outshow.
their flaws?
saying "la, la, la, I am not listening".
mainframetech
2018-05-11 02:58:45 UTC
Post by bigdog
If you have a problem with their methodology, why don't you point out
their flaws?
No need. Using a simulation or animation is automatically going toIf you have a problem with their methodology, why don't you point out
their flaws?
show what the author wants to show. And that may or may not be what is
the truth, and so can't be relied upon. Think it through.
Chris
Anthony Marsh
2018-05-12 03:18:18 UTC
Post by mainframetech
show what the author wants to show. And that may or may not be what is
the truth, and so can't be relied upon. Think it through.
Except when it accidentally backfire. Like Lattimer's shot making thePost by bigdog
If you have a problem with their methodology, why don't you point out
their flaws?
No need. Using a simulation or animation is automatically going toIf you have a problem with their methodology, why don't you point out
their flaws?
show what the author wants to show. And that may or may not be what is
the truth, and so can't be relied upon. Think it through.
ladder move forward.
bigdog
2018-05-12 14:27:58 UTC
Post by mainframetech
show what the author wants to show.
They aren't simulations or animations. They are experiments which are anPost by bigdog
If you have a problem with their methodology, why don't you point out
their flaws?
No need. Using a simulation or animation is automatically going toIf you have a problem with their methodology, why don't you point out
their flaws?
show what the author wants to show.
important part of the scientific process. They make their methods known so
that others can replicate what they do to see if they get the same
results. That is also standard scientific practice.
Post by mainframetech
And that may or may not be what is
the truth, and so can't be relied upon. Think it through.
So you can't find any fault with their experiments.And that may or may not be what is
the truth, and so can't be relied upon. Think it through.
mainframetech
2018-05-13 00:02:33 UTC
Post by bigdog
important part of the scientific process. They make their methods known so
that others can replicate what they do to see if they get the same
results. That is also standard scientific practice.
Who are you trying to kid? You think changing the name of somethingPost by mainframetech
show what the author wants to show.
They aren't simulations or animations. They are experiments which are anPost by bigdog
If you have a problem with their methodology, why don't you point out
their flaws?
No need. Using a simulation or animation is automatically going toIf you have a problem with their methodology, why don't you point out
their flaws?
show what the author wants to show.
important part of the scientific process. They make their methods known so
that others can replicate what they do to see if they get the same
results. That is also standard scientific practice.
changes its nature? Forget it! There is no way to exactly match the
original situation, so that whatever is done is still the author's
creation.
Post by bigdog
Where were you when I pointed out the main error in your thinking ofPost by mainframetech
And that may or may not be what is
the truth, and so can't be relied upon. Think it through.
So you can't find any fault with their experiments.And that may or may not be what is
the truth, and so can't be relied upon. Think it through.
"experiments" (Simulations or animations)?
Chris
bigdog
2018-05-14 03:13:49 UTC
Post by mainframetech
changes its nature? Forget it! There is no way to exactly match the
original situation, so that whatever is done is still the author's
creation.
Of course there is no way to exactly match a shooting yet that doesn'tPost by bigdog
important part of the scientific process. They make their methods known so
that others can replicate what they do to see if they get the same
results. That is also standard scientific practice.
Who are you trying to kid? You think changing the name of somethingPost by mainframetech
show what the author wants to show.
They aren't simulations or animations. They are experiments which are anPost by bigdog
If you have a problem with their methodology, why don't you point out
their flaws?
No need. Using a simulation or animation is automatically going toIf you have a problem with their methodology, why don't you point out
their flaws?
show what the author wants to show.
important part of the scientific process. They make their methods known so
that others can replicate what they do to see if they get the same
results. That is also standard scientific practice.
changes its nature? Forget it! There is no way to exactly match the
original situation, so that whatever is done is still the author's
creation.
stop conspiracy hobbyists from claiming that Oswald's shooting feat has
never been duplicated. What the Haag's do is test specific elements of the
shooting in a controlled situation. For example they showed what happens
when a bullet strikes an asphalt surface at the approximate angle a first
shot miss by Oswald would have hit the pavement on Elm St. There was no
ricochet. The bullet made a crater in the asphalt and disintegrated. Marsh
has long challenged us to show him that bullet but as the Haag's
experiment indicated, if the bullet struck pavement, it likely would have
disintegrated.
Post by mainframetech
"experiments" (Simulations or animations)?
So you think experimentation is overrated in the scientific community.Post by bigdog
Where were you when I pointed out the main error in your thinking ofPost by mainframetech
And that may or may not be what is
the truth, and so can't be relied upon. Think it through.
So you can't find any fault with their experiments.And that may or may not be what is
the truth, and so can't be relied upon. Think it through.
"experiments" (Simulations or animations)?
Better to just go with your hunches like you do.
mainframetech
2018-05-15 01:48:30 UTC
Post by bigdog
stop conspiracy hobbyists from claiming that Oswald's shooting feat has
never been duplicated. What the Haag's do is test specific elements of the
shooting in a controlled situation. For example they showed what happens
when a bullet strikes an asphalt surface at the approximate angle a first
shot miss by Oswald would have hit the pavement on Elm St. There was no
ricochet. The bullet made a crater in the asphalt and disintegrated. Marsh
has long challenged us to show him that bullet but as the Haag's
experiment indicated, if the bullet struck pavement, it likely would have
disintegrated.
Gimme a link to the Haag testing, I'd like to se if they consideredPost by mainframetech
changes its nature? Forget it! There is no way to exactly match the
original situation, so that whatever is done is still the author's
creation.
Of course there is no way to exactly match a shooting yet that doesn'tPost by bigdog
important part of the scientific process. They make their methods known so
that others can replicate what they do to see if they get the same
results. That is also standard scientific practice.
Who are you trying to kid? You think changing the name of somethingPost by mainframetech
show what the author wants to show.
They aren't simulations or animations. They are experiments which are anPost by bigdog
If you have a problem with their methodology, why don't you point out
their flaws?
No need. Using a simulation or animation is automatically going toIf you have a problem with their methodology, why don't you point out
their flaws?
show what the author wants to show.
important part of the scientific process. They make their methods known so
that others can replicate what they do to see if they get the same
results. That is also standard scientific practice.
changes its nature? Forget it! There is no way to exactly match the
original situation, so that whatever is done is still the author's
creation.
stop conspiracy hobbyists from claiming that Oswald's shooting feat has
never been duplicated. What the Haag's do is test specific elements of the
shooting in a controlled situation. For example they showed what happens
when a bullet strikes an asphalt surface at the approximate angle a first
shot miss by Oswald would have hit the pavement on Elm St. There was no
ricochet. The bullet made a crater in the asphalt and disintegrated. Marsh
has long challenged us to show him that bullet but as the Haag's
experiment indicated, if the bullet struck pavement, it likely would have
disintegrated.
the faulty MC rifle and some other things.
Post by bigdog
Better to just go with your hunches like you do.
WRONG! You can't help adding to your failure count, can you? It'sPost by mainframetech
"experiments" (Simulations or animations)?
So you think experimentation is overrated in the scientific community.Post by bigdog
Where were you when I pointed out the main error in your thinking ofPost by mainframetech
And that may or may not be what is
the truth, and so can't be relied upon. Think it through.
So you can't find any fault with their experiments.And that may or may not be what is
the truth, and so can't be relied upon. Think it through.
"experiments" (Simulations or animations)?
Better to just go with your hunches like you do.
like Trump making a speech and getting himself in deeper trouble every
time. You tried once again to pretend that I said things I didn't say.
I don't "think experimentation is overrated in the scientific community".
But the attempts to simulate or animate past situations won't work to a
proper degree. That form of experimentation doesn't work well,
particularly when there is an element that wants to make the 'patsy' look
guilty.
Chris
bigdog
2018-05-15 20:52:49 UTC
Post by mainframetech
the faulty MC rifle and some other things.
What the hell would the alleged faults have to do with what they werePost by bigdog
stop conspiracy hobbyists from claiming that Oswald's shooting feat has
never been duplicated. What the Haag's do is test specific elements of the
shooting in a controlled situation. For example they showed what happens
when a bullet strikes an asphalt surface at the approximate angle a first
shot miss by Oswald would have hit the pavement on Elm St. There was no
ricochet. The bullet made a crater in the asphalt and disintegrated. Marsh
has long challenged us to show him that bullet but as the Haag's
experiment indicated, if the bullet struck pavement, it likely would have
disintegrated.
Gimme a link to the Haag testing, I'd like to se if they consideredPost by mainframetech
changes its nature? Forget it! There is no way to exactly match the
original situation, so that whatever is done is still the author's
creation.
Of course there is no way to exactly match a shooting yet that doesn'tPost by bigdog
important part of the scientific process. They make their methods known so
that others can replicate what they do to see if they get the same
results. That is also standard scientific practice.
Who are you trying to kid? You think changing the name of somethingPost by mainframetech
show what the author wants to show.
They aren't simulations or animations. They are experiments which are anPost by bigdog
If you have a problem with their methodology, why don't you point out
their flaws?
No need. Using a simulation or animation is automatically going toIf you have a problem with their methodology, why don't you point out
their flaws?
show what the author wants to show.
important part of the scientific process. They make their methods known so
that others can replicate what they do to see if they get the same
results. That is also standard scientific practice.
changes its nature? Forget it! There is no way to exactly match the
original situation, so that whatever is done is still the author's
creation.
stop conspiracy hobbyists from claiming that Oswald's shooting feat has
never been duplicated. What the Haag's do is test specific elements of the
shooting in a controlled situation. For example they showed what happens
when a bullet strikes an asphalt surface at the approximate angle a first
shot miss by Oswald would have hit the pavement on Elm St. There was no
ricochet. The bullet made a crater in the asphalt and disintegrated. Marsh
has long challenged us to show him that bullet but as the Haag's
experiment indicated, if the bullet struck pavement, it likely would have
disintegrated.
the faulty MC rifle and some other things.
testing? They used the same make of Carcano rifle and bullets from the
same batch. Oswald's Carcano was capable of firing the same bullets used
in the test. They were testing what happened after the bullets left the
muzzle. What difference would it make which rifle it came from.
If you want specifics for the Haag testing, google "Haag ballistics test"
and you'll get all the hits you want. Of course we already know what your
game is. You are searching for an excuse to dismiss the findings of
another recognized expert in his field that doesn't conform to your
beliefs.
Post by mainframetech
like Trump making a speech and getting himself in deeper trouble every
time. You tried once again to pretend that I said things I didn't say.
You characterized experimentation as simulations and animations that showsPost by bigdog
Better to just go with your hunches like you do.
WRONG! You can't help adding to your failure count, can you? It'sPost by mainframetech
"experiments" (Simulations or animations)?
So you think experimentation is overrated in the scientific community.Post by bigdog
Where were you when I pointed out the main error in your thinking ofPost by mainframetech
And that may or may not be what is
the truth, and so can't be relied upon. Think it through.
So you can't find any fault with their experiments.And that may or may not be what is
the truth, and so can't be relied upon. Think it through.
"experiments" (Simulations or animations)?
Better to just go with your hunches like you do.
like Trump making a speech and getting himself in deeper trouble every
time. You tried once again to pretend that I said things I didn't say.
what the author wants. That sounds pretty dismissive to me.
Post by mainframetech
I don't "think experimentation is overrated in the scientific community".
But the attempts to simulate or animate past situations won't work to a
proper degree.
So you are dismissing them.I don't "think experimentation is overrated in the scientific community".
But the attempts to simulate or animate past situations won't work to a
proper degree.
Post by mainframetech
That form of experimentation doesn't work well,
particularly when there is an element that wants to make the 'patsy' look
guilty.
WTG. Another of your lame excuses to dismiss inconvenient evidence. YouThat form of experimentation doesn't work well,
particularly when there is an element that wants to make the 'patsy' look
guilty.
are so predictable.
mainframetech
2018-05-16 02:46:55 UTC
Post by bigdog
A complete unknown. Asphalt paving sometimes has embedded stones inPost by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
stop conspiracy hobbyists from claiming that Oswald's shooting feat has
never been duplicated. What the Haag's do is test specific elements of the
shooting in a controlled situation. For example they showed what happens
when a bullet strikes an asphalt surface at the approximate angle a first
shot miss by Oswald would have hit the pavement on Elm St. There was no
ricochet. The bullet made a crater in the asphalt and disintegrated. Marsh
has long challenged us to show him that bullet but as the Haag's
experiment indicated, if the bullet struck pavement, it likely would have
disintegrated.
Post by mainframetech
changes its nature? Forget it! There is no way to exactly match the
original situation, so that whatever is done is still the author's
creation.
Of course there is no way to exactly match a shooting yet that doesn'tPost by bigdog
important part of the scientific process. They make their methods known so
that others can replicate what they do to see if they get the same
results. That is also standard scientific practice.
Who are you trying to kid? You think changing the name of somethingPost by mainframetech
show what the author wants to show.
They aren't simulations or animations. They are experiments which are anPost by bigdog
If you have a problem with their methodology, why don't you point out
their flaws?
No need. Using a simulation or animation is automatically going toIf you have a problem with their methodology, why don't you point out
their flaws?
show what the author wants to show.
important part of the scientific process. They make their methods known so
that others can replicate what they do to see if they get the same
results. That is also standard scientific practice.
changes its nature? Forget it! There is no way to exactly match the
original situation, so that whatever is done is still the author's
creation.
stop conspiracy hobbyists from claiming that Oswald's shooting feat has
never been duplicated. What the Haag's do is test specific elements of the
shooting in a controlled situation. For example they showed what happens
when a bullet strikes an asphalt surface at the approximate angle a first
shot miss by Oswald would have hit the pavement on Elm St. There was no
ricochet. The bullet made a crater in the asphalt and disintegrated. Marsh
has long challenged us to show him that bullet but as the Haag's
experiment indicated, if the bullet struck pavement, it likely would have
disintegrated.
it, and if a bullet struck a stone in the paving, there is no guarantee
what would happen to the bullet. Do we know the type of paving? some are
harder than others depending on the content of the mixture they used.
That's only 2 of the possible mistakes in setting up a duplication of an
event. That's why I want the cites and links, to see what lengths they
went to in the testing.
Post by bigdog
testing? They used the same make of Carcano rifle and bullets from the
same batch. Oswald's Carcano was capable of firing the same bullets used
in the test. They were testing what happened after the bullets left the
muzzle. What difference would it make which rifle it came from.
Oswald's rifle was NOT as capable as the replacement rifle. It hadPost by mainframetech
Gimme a link to the Haag testing, I'd like to se if they considered
the faulty MC rifle and some other things.
What the hell would the alleged faults have to do with what they wereGimme a link to the Haag testing, I'd like to se if they considered
the faulty MC rifle and some other things.
testing? They used the same make of Carcano rifle and bullets from the
same batch. Oswald's Carcano was capable of firing the same bullets used
in the test. They were testing what happened after the bullets left the
muzzle. What difference would it make which rifle it came from.
certain problems, which have been laid out for you many times. Funny how
you forget that when trying to pretend you're the guru. And as I noted
above, "some other things".
Post by bigdog
If you want specifics for the Haag testing, google "Haag ballistics test"
and you'll get all the hits you want. Of course we already know what your
game is. You are searching for an excuse to dismiss the findings of
another recognized expert in his field that doesn't conform to your
beliefs.
Naah! That's already been done. See above. You can't get it exactlyIf you want specifics for the Haag testing, google "Haag ballistics test"
and you'll get all the hits you want. Of course we already know what your
game is. You are searching for an excuse to dismiss the findings of
another recognized expert in his field that doesn't conform to your
beliefs.
right when you try to duplicate various parts of an event.
Post by bigdog
what the author wants. That sounds pretty dismissive to me.
It doesn't dismiss the tests, only invalidates them. I would use thePost by mainframetech
like Trump making a speech and getting himself in deeper trouble every
time. You tried once again to pretend that I said things I didn't say.
You characterized experimentation as simulations and animations that showsPost by bigdog
Better to just go with your hunches like you do.
WRONG! You can't help adding to your failure count, can you? It'sPost by mainframetech
"experiments" (Simulations or animations)?
So you think experimentation is overrated in the scientific community.Post by bigdog
Where were you when I pointed out the main error in your thinking ofPost by mainframetech
And that may or may not be what is
the truth, and so can't be relied upon. Think it through.
So you can't find any fault with their experiments.And that may or may not be what is
the truth, and so can't be relied upon. Think it through.
"experiments" (Simulations or animations)?
Better to just go with your hunches like you do.
like Trump making a speech and getting himself in deeper trouble every
time. You tried once again to pretend that I said things I didn't say.
what the author wants. That sounds pretty dismissive to me.
evidence of the tests to show the foolishness of the testers.
Post by bigdog
Oh my! Braggo the mind reader! WRONG yet again. Add one to yourPost by mainframetech
I don't "think experimentation is overrated in the scientific community".
But the attempts to simulate or animate past situations won't work to a
proper degree.
So you are dismissing them.I don't "think experimentation is overrated in the scientific community".
But the attempts to simulate or animate past situations won't work to a
proper degree.
endless count of errors! I might use them differently than you, but I
won't dismiss them.
Post by bigdog
are so predictable.
As are you, having once again made yourself WRONG to the world! I DOPost by mainframetech
That form of experimentation doesn't work well,
particularly when there is an element that wants to make the 'patsy' look
guilty.
WTG. Another of your lame excuses to dismiss inconvenient evidence. YouThat form of experimentation doesn't work well,
particularly when there is an element that wants to make the 'patsy' look
guilty.
are so predictable.
NOT DIAMISS EVIDENCE, THOUGH I MIGHT USE IT DIFFERENTLY THAN YOU.
Chris
bigdog
2018-05-17 02:55:49 UTC
Post by mainframetech
it, and if a bullet struck a stone in the paving, there is no guarantee
what would happen to the bullet. Do we know the type of paving? some are
harder than others depending on the content of the mixture they used.
That's only 2 of the possible mistakes in setting up a duplication of an
event. That's why I want the cites and links, to see what lengths they
went to in the testing.
Sounds like you're groping for an excuse to dismiss the results of thePost by bigdog
A complete unknown. Asphalt paving sometimes has embedded stones inPost by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
stop conspiracy hobbyists from claiming that Oswald's shooting feat has
never been duplicated. What the Haag's do is test specific elements of the
shooting in a controlled situation. For example they showed what happens
when a bullet strikes an asphalt surface at the approximate angle a first
shot miss by Oswald would have hit the pavement on Elm St. There was no
ricochet. The bullet made a crater in the asphalt and disintegrated. Marsh
has long challenged us to show him that bullet but as the Haag's
experiment indicated, if the bullet struck pavement, it likely would have
disintegrated.
Post by mainframetech
changes its nature? Forget it! There is no way to exactly match the
original situation, so that whatever is done is still the author's
creation.
Of course there is no way to exactly match a shooting yet that doesn'tPost by bigdog
important part of the scientific process. They make their methods known so
that others can replicate what they do to see if they get the same
results. That is also standard scientific practice.
Who are you trying to kid? You think changing the name of somethingPost by mainframetech
show what the author wants to show.
They aren't simulations or animations. They are experiments which are anPost by bigdog
If you have a problem with their methodology, why don't you point out
their flaws?
No need. Using a simulation or animation is automatically going toIf you have a problem with their methodology, why don't you point out
their flaws?
show what the author wants to show.
important part of the scientific process. They make their methods known so
that others can replicate what they do to see if they get the same
results. That is also standard scientific practice.
changes its nature? Forget it! There is no way to exactly match the
original situation, so that whatever is done is still the author's
creation.
stop conspiracy hobbyists from claiming that Oswald's shooting feat has
never been duplicated. What the Haag's do is test specific elements of the
shooting in a controlled situation. For example they showed what happens
when a bullet strikes an asphalt surface at the approximate angle a first
shot miss by Oswald would have hit the pavement on Elm St. There was no
ricochet. The bullet made a crater in the asphalt and disintegrated. Marsh
has long challenged us to show him that bullet but as the Haag's
experiment indicated, if the bullet struck pavement, it likely would have
disintegrated.
it, and if a bullet struck a stone in the paving, there is no guarantee
what would happen to the bullet. Do we know the type of paving? some are
harder than others depending on the content of the mixture they used.
That's only 2 of the possible mistakes in setting up a duplication of an
event. That's why I want the cites and links, to see what lengths they
went to in the testing.
test.
Post by mainframetech
certain problems, which have been laid out for you many times. Funny how
you forget that when trying to pretend you're the guru. And as I noted
above, "some other things".
The problems you have imagined would have no effect on the bullet once itPost by bigdog
testing? They used the same make of Carcano rifle and bullets from the
same batch. Oswald's Carcano was capable of firing the same bullets used
in the test. They were testing what happened after the bullets left the
muzzle. What difference would it make which rifle it came from.
Oswald's rifle was NOT as capable as the replacement rifle. It hadPost by mainframetech
Gimme a link to the Haag testing, I'd like to se if they considered
the faulty MC rifle and some other things.
What the hell would the alleged faults have to do with what they wereGimme a link to the Haag testing, I'd like to se if they considered
the faulty MC rifle and some other things.
testing? They used the same make of Carcano rifle and bullets from the
same batch. Oswald's Carcano was capable of firing the same bullets used
in the test. They were testing what happened after the bullets left the
muzzle. What difference would it make which rifle it came from.
certain problems, which have been laid out for you many times. Funny how
you forget that when trying to pretend you're the guru. And as I noted
above, "some other things".
was fired.
Post by mainframetech
right when you try to duplicate various parts of an event.
So you figured out your excuse to dismiss the results. I knew I couldPost by bigdog
If you want specifics for the Haag testing, google "Haag ballistics test"
and you'll get all the hits you want. Of course we already know what your
game is. You are searching for an excuse to dismiss the findings of
another recognized expert in his field that doesn't conform to your
beliefs.
Naah! That's already been done. See above. You can't get it exactlyIf you want specifics for the Haag testing, google "Haag ballistics test"
and you'll get all the hits you want. Of course we already know what your
game is. You are searching for an excuse to dismiss the findings of
another recognized expert in his field that doesn't conform to your
beliefs.
right when you try to duplicate various parts of an event.
count on you.
Post by mainframetech
evidence of the tests to show the foolishness of the testers.
Oh, you don't dismiss the results, you invalidate them. That's a bigPost by bigdog
what the author wants. That sounds pretty dismissive to me.
It doesn't dismiss the tests, only invalidates them. I would use thePost by mainframetech
like Trump making a speech and getting himself in deeper trouble every
time. You tried once again to pretend that I said things I didn't say.
You characterized experimentation as simulations and animations that showsPost by bigdog
Better to just go with your hunches like you do.
WRONG! You can't help adding to your failure count, can you? It'sPost by mainframetech
"experiments" (Simulations or animations)?
So you think experimentation is overrated in the scientific community.Post by bigdog
Where were you when I pointed out the main error in your thinking ofPost by mainframetech
And that may or may not be what is
the truth, and so can't be relied upon. Think it through.
So you can't find any fault with their experiments.And that may or may not be what is
the truth, and so can't be relied upon. Think it through.
"experiments" (Simulations or animations)?
Better to just go with your hunches like you do.
like Trump making a speech and getting himself in deeper trouble every
time. You tried once again to pretend that I said things I didn't say.
what the author wants. That sounds pretty dismissive to me.
evidence of the tests to show the foolishness of the testers.
difference.
Post by mainframetech
endless count of errors! I might use them differently than you, but I
won't dismiss them.
You just did.Post by bigdog
Oh my! Braggo the mind reader! WRONG yet again. Add one to yourPost by mainframetech
I don't "think experimentation is overrated in the scientific community".
But the attempts to simulate or animate past situations won't work to a
proper degree.
So you are dismissing them.I don't "think experimentation is overrated in the scientific community".
But the attempts to simulate or animate past situations won't work to a
proper degree.
endless count of errors! I might use them differently than you, but I
won't dismiss them.
Post by mainframetech
NOT DIAMISS EVIDENCE, THOUGH I MIGHT USE IT DIFFERENTLY THAN YOU.
You use it to dismiss it because it gets in the way of your theories.Post by bigdog
are so predictable.
As are you, having once again made yourself WRONG to the world! I DOPost by mainframetech
That form of experimentation doesn't work well,
particularly when there is an element that wants to make the 'patsy' look
guilty.
WTG. Another of your lame excuses to dismiss inconvenient evidence. YouThat form of experimentation doesn't work well,
particularly when there is an element that wants to make the 'patsy' look
guilty.
are so predictable.
NOT DIAMISS EVIDENCE, THOUGH I MIGHT USE IT DIFFERENTLY THAN YOU.
mainframetech
2018-05-18 00:15:33 UTC
Post by bigdog
test.
WRONG! Of course not. I'm more interested in showing that you don'tPost by mainframetech
it, and if a bullet struck a stone in the paving, there is no guarantee
what would happen to the bullet. Do we know the type of paving? some are
harder than others depending on the content of the mixture they used.
That's only 2 of the possible mistakes in setting up a duplication of an
event. That's why I want the cites and links, to see what lengths they
went to in the testing.
Sounds like you're groping for an excuse to dismiss the results of thePost by bigdog
A complete unknown. Asphalt paving sometimes has embedded stones inPost by bigdog
stop conspiracy hobbyists from claiming that Oswald's shooting feat has
never been duplicated. What the Haag's do is test specific elements of the
shooting in a controlled situation. For example they showed what happens
when a bullet strikes an asphalt surface at the approximate angle a first
shot miss by Oswald would have hit the pavement on Elm St. There was no
ricochet. The bullet made a crater in the asphalt and disintegrated. Marsh
has long challenged us to show him that bullet but as the Haag's
experiment indicated, if the bullet struck pavement, it likely would have
disintegrated.
Post by mainframetech
changes its nature? Forget it! There is no way to exactly match the
original situation, so that whatever is done is still the author's
creation.
Of course there is no way to exactly match a shooting yet that doesn'tPost by bigdog
important part of the scientific process. They make their methods known so
that others can replicate what they do to see if they get the same
results. That is also standard scientific practice.
Who are you trying to kid? You think changing the name of somethingPost by mainframetech
show what the author wants to show.
They aren't simulations or animations. They are experiments which are anPost by bigdog
If you have a problem with their methodology, why don't you point out
their flaws?
No need. Using a simulation or animation is automatically going toIf you have a problem with their methodology, why don't you point out
their flaws?
show what the author wants to show.
important part of the scientific process. They make their methods known so
that others can replicate what they do to see if they get the same
results. That is also standard scientific practice.
changes its nature? Forget it! There is no way to exactly match the
original situation, so that whatever is done is still the author's
creation.
stop conspiracy hobbyists from claiming that Oswald's shooting feat has
never been duplicated. What the Haag's do is test specific elements of the
shooting in a controlled situation. For example they showed what happens
when a bullet strikes an asphalt surface at the approximate angle a first
shot miss by Oswald would have hit the pavement on Elm St. There was no
ricochet. The bullet made a crater in the asphalt and disintegrated. Marsh
has long challenged us to show him that bullet but as the Haag's
experiment indicated, if the bullet struck pavement, it likely would have
disintegrated.
it, and if a bullet struck a stone in the paving, there is no guarantee
what would happen to the bullet. Do we know the type of paving? some are
harder than others depending on the content of the mixture they used.
That's only 2 of the possible mistakes in setting up a duplication of an
event. That's why I want the cites and links, to see what lengths they
went to in the testing.
test.
have a leg to stand on in this instance.
Post by bigdog
was fired.
I don't see the cites and links to Haag. Does that mean that you werePost by mainframetech
certain problems, which have been laid out for you many times. Funny how
you forget that when trying to pretend you're the guru. And as I noted
above, "some other things".
The problems you have imagined would have no effect on the bullet once itPost by bigdog
testing? They used the same make of Carcano rifle and bullets from the
same batch. Oswald's Carcano was capable of firing the same bullets used
in the test. They were testing what happened after the bullets left the
muzzle. What difference would it make which rifle it came from.
Oswald's rifle was NOT as capable as the replacement rifle. It hadGimme a link to the Haag testing, I'd like to see if they considered
the faulty MC rifle and some other things.
What the hell would the alleged faults have to do with what they werethe faulty MC rifle and some other things.
testing? They used the same make of Carcano rifle and bullets from the
same batch. Oswald's Carcano was capable of firing the same bullets used
in the test. They were testing what happened after the bullets left the
muzzle. What difference would it make which rifle it came from.
certain problems, which have been laid out for you many times. Funny how
you forget that when trying to pretend you're the guru. And as I noted
above, "some other things".
was fired.
faking it?
Post by bigdog
count on you.
Add another WRONG to your endless count of errors. I did the work forPost by mainframetech
right when you try to duplicate various parts of an event.
So you figured out your excuse to dismiss the results. I knew I couldPost by bigdog
If you want specifics for the Haag testing, google "Haag ballistics test"
and you'll get all the hits you want. Of course we already know what your
game is. You are searching for an excuse to dismiss the findings of
another recognized expert in his field that doesn't conform to your
beliefs.
Naah! That's already been done. See above. You can't get it exactlyIf you want specifics for the Haag testing, google "Haag ballistics test"
and you'll get all the hits you want. Of course we already know what your
game is. You are searching for an excuse to dismiss the findings of
another recognized expert in his field that doesn't conform to your
beliefs.
right when you try to duplicate various parts of an event.
count on you.
you of digging up the video on the Haags, and it is wrong at the
beginning. It starts with assuming a bullet came out of JFK's neck, or
throat wound, and then hit Connolly. So the simulation was no good from
the start. We've seen the proof that the bullet never left the body of
JFK, so that was impossible.
Save that evidence, so that I can show the foolishness of the LNs and
what they will try to get away with.
Post by bigdog
difference.
Thank you. About time you realized it.Post by mainframetech
evidence of the tests to show the foolishness of the testers.
Oh, you don't dismiss the results, you invalidate them. That's a bigPost by bigdog
like Trump making a speech and getting himself in deeper trouble every
time. You tried once again to pretend that I said things I didn't say.
You characterized experimentation as simulations and animations that shows
what the author wants. That sounds pretty dismissive to me.
It doesn't dismiss the tests, only invalidates them. I would use thePost by bigdog
Better to just go with your hunches like you do.
WRONG! You can't help adding to your failure count, can you? It'sPost by mainframetech
"experiments" (Simulations or animations)?
So you think experimentation is overrated in the scientific community.Post by bigdog
Where were you when I pointed out the main error in your thinking ofPost by mainframetech
And that may or may not be what is
the truth, and so can't be relied upon. Think it through.
So you can't find any fault with their experiments.And that may or may not be what is
the truth, and so can't be relied upon. Think it through.
"experiments" (Simulations or animations)?
Better to just go with your hunches like you do.
like Trump making a speech and getting himself in deeper trouble every
time. You tried once again to pretend that I said things I didn't say.
what the author wants. That sounds pretty dismissive to me.
evidence of the tests to show the foolishness of the testers.
difference.
Post by bigdog
Naah!Post by mainframetech
endless count of errors! I might use them differently than you, but I
won't dismiss them.
You just did.Post by bigdog
Oh my! Braggo the mind reader! WRONG yet again. Add one to yourI don't "think experimentation is overrated in the scientific community".
But the attempts to simulate or animate past situations won't work to a
proper degree.
So you are dismissing them.But the attempts to simulate or animate past situations won't work to a
proper degree.
endless count of errors! I might use them differently than you, but I
won't dismiss them.
Post by bigdog
Naah! And I don't deal with theories like the WCR does. I like factsPost by mainframetech
NOT DISMISS EVIDENCE, THOUGH I MIGHT USE IT DIFFERENTLY THAN YOU.
You use it to dismiss it because it gets in the way of your theories.Post by bigdog
are so predictable.
As are you, having once again made yourself WRONG to the world! I DOThat form of experimentation doesn't work well,
particularly when there is an element that wants to make the 'patsy' look
guilty.
WTG. Another of your lame excuses to dismiss inconvenient evidence. Youparticularly when there is an element that wants to make the 'patsy' look
guilty.
are so predictable.
NOT DISMISS EVIDENCE, THOUGH I MIGHT USE IT DIFFERENTLY THAN YOU.
and reality.
Chris
bigdog
2018-05-19 01:43:27 UTC
Post by mainframetech
have a leg to stand on in this instance.
faking it?
The link to the video was posted by BOZ in the OP. How many times do youPost by bigdog
test.
WRONG! Of course not. I'm more interested in showing that you don'tPost by mainframetech
it, and if a bullet struck a stone in the paving, there is no guarantee
what would happen to the bullet. Do we know the type of paving? some are
harder than others depending on the content of the mixture they used.
That's only 2 of the possible mistakes in setting up a duplication of an
event. That's why I want the cites and links, to see what lengths they
went to in the testing.
Sounds like you're groping for an excuse to dismiss the results of thePost by bigdog
A complete unknown. Asphalt paving sometimes has embedded stones inPost by bigdog
stop conspiracy hobbyists from claiming that Oswald's shooting feat has
never been duplicated. What the Haag's do is test specific elements of the
shooting in a controlled situation. For example they showed what happens
when a bullet strikes an asphalt surface at the approximate angle a first
shot miss by Oswald would have hit the pavement on Elm St. There was no
ricochet. The bullet made a crater in the asphalt and disintegrated. Marsh
has long challenged us to show him that bullet but as the Haag's
experiment indicated, if the bullet struck pavement, it likely would have
disintegrated.
Post by mainframetech
changes its nature? Forget it! There is no way to exactly match the
original situation, so that whatever is done is still the author's
creation.
Of course there is no way to exactly match a shooting yet that doesn'tPost by bigdog
important part of the scientific process. They make their methods known so
that others can replicate what they do to see if they get the same
results. That is also standard scientific practice.
Who are you trying to kid? You think changing the name of somethingPost by mainframetech
show what the author wants to show.
They aren't simulations or animations. They are experiments which are anPost by bigdog
If you have a problem with their methodology, why don't you point out
their flaws?
No need. Using a simulation or animation is automatically going toIf you have a problem with their methodology, why don't you point out
their flaws?
show what the author wants to show.
important part of the scientific process. They make their methods known so
that others can replicate what they do to see if they get the same
results. That is also standard scientific practice.
changes its nature? Forget it! There is no way to exactly match the
original situation, so that whatever is done is still the author's
creation.
stop conspiracy hobbyists from claiming that Oswald's shooting feat has
never been duplicated. What the Haag's do is test specific elements of the
shooting in a controlled situation. For example they showed what happens
when a bullet strikes an asphalt surface at the approximate angle a first
shot miss by Oswald would have hit the pavement on Elm St. There was no
ricochet. The bullet made a crater in the asphalt and disintegrated. Marsh
has long challenged us to show him that bullet but as the Haag's
experiment indicated, if the bullet struck pavement, it likely would have
disintegrated.
it, and if a bullet struck a stone in the paving, there is no guarantee
what would happen to the bullet. Do we know the type of paving? some are
harder than others depending on the content of the mixture they used.
That's only 2 of the possible mistakes in setting up a duplication of an
event. That's why I want the cites and links, to see what lengths they
went to in the testing.
test.
have a leg to stand on in this instance.
Post by bigdog
was fired.
I don't see the cites and links to Haag. Does that mean that you werePost by mainframetech
certain problems, which have been laid out for you many times. Funny how
you forget that when trying to pretend you're the guru. And as I noted
above, "some other things".
The problems you have imagined would have no effect on the bullet once itPost by bigdog
testing? They used the same make of Carcano rifle and bullets from the
same batch. Oswald's Carcano was capable of firing the same bullets used
in the test. They were testing what happened after the bullets left the
muzzle. What difference would it make which rifle it came from.
Oswald's rifle was NOT as capable as the replacement rifle. It hadGimme a link to the Haag testing, I'd like to see if they considered
the faulty MC rifle and some other things.
What the hell would the alleged faults have to do with what they werethe faulty MC rifle and some other things.
testing? They used the same make of Carcano rifle and bullets from the
same batch. Oswald's Carcano was capable of firing the same bullets used
in the test. They were testing what happened after the bullets left the
muzzle. What difference would it make which rifle it came from.
certain problems, which have been laid out for you many times. Funny how
you forget that when trying to pretend you're the guru. And as I noted
above, "some other things".
was fired.
faking it?
need it posted in one thread.
Also if you listen to the radio interview, from the 17:25 to 17:50 mark,
Luke Haag answers the question you asked in another thread regarding the
fragmented bullet found in the limo. He tells us that 90 of the 160 grains
from a Carcano are missing from what was recovered indicating those
fragments left the limo.
Post by mainframetech
you of digging up the video on the Haags, and it is wrong at the
beginning. It starts with assuming a bullet came out of JFK's neck, or
throat wound, and then hit Connolly. So the simulation was no good from
the start. We've seen the proof that the bullet never left the body of
JFK, so that was impossible.
Save that evidence, so that I can show the foolishness of the LNs and
what they will try to get away with.
So once again you pretend to know better than recognized experts in theirPost by bigdog
count on you.
Add another WRONG to your endless count of errors. I did the work forPost by mainframetech
right when you try to duplicate various parts of an event.
So you figured out your excuse to dismiss the results. I knew I couldPost by bigdog
If you want specifics for the Haag testing, google "Haag ballistics test"
and you'll get all the hits you want. Of course we already know what your
game is. You are searching for an excuse to dismiss the findings of
another recognized expert in his field that doesn't conform to your
beliefs.
Naah! That's already been done. See above. You can't get it exactlyIf you want specifics for the Haag testing, google "Haag ballistics test"
and you'll get all the hits you want. Of course we already know what your
game is. You are searching for an excuse to dismiss the findings of
another recognized expert in his field that doesn't conform to your
beliefs.
right when you try to duplicate various parts of an event.
count on you.
you of digging up the video on the Haags, and it is wrong at the
beginning. It starts with assuming a bullet came out of JFK's neck, or
throat wound, and then hit Connolly. So the simulation was no good from
the start. We've seen the proof that the bullet never left the body of
JFK, so that was impossible.
Save that evidence, so that I can show the foolishness of the LNs and
what they will try to get away with.
field. You think your opinions are more valid than theirs.
Post by mainframetech
and reality.
Not only do you deal in theories, you deal in silly, completelyPost by bigdog
difference.
Thank you. About time you realized it.Post by mainframetech
evidence of the tests to show the foolishness of the testers.
Oh, you don't dismiss the results, you invalidate them. That's a bigPost by bigdog
like Trump making a speech and getting himself in deeper trouble every
time. You tried once again to pretend that I said things I didn't say.
You characterized experimentation as simulations and animations that shows
what the author wants. That sounds pretty dismissive to me.
It doesn't dismiss the tests, only invalidates them. I would use thePost by bigdog
Better to just go with your hunches like you do.
WRONG! You can't help adding to your failure count, can you? It'sPost by mainframetech
"experiments" (Simulations or animations)?
So you think experimentation is overrated in the scientific community.Post by bigdog
Where were you when I pointed out the main error in your thinking ofPost by mainframetech
And that may or may not be what is
the truth, and so can't be relied upon. Think it through.
So you can't find any fault with their experiments.And that may or may not be what is
the truth, and so can't be relied upon. Think it through.
"experiments" (Simulations or animations)?
Better to just go with your hunches like you do.
like Trump making a speech and getting himself in deeper trouble every
time. You tried once again to pretend that I said things I didn't say.
what the author wants. That sounds pretty dismissive to me.
evidence of the tests to show the foolishness of the testers.
difference.
Post by bigdog
Naah!Post by mainframetech
endless count of errors! I might use them differently than you, but I
won't dismiss them.
You just did.Post by bigdog
Oh my! Braggo the mind reader! WRONG yet again. Add one to yourI don't "think experimentation is overrated in the scientific community".
But the attempts to simulate or animate past situations won't work to a
proper degree.
So you are dismissing them.But the attempts to simulate or animate past situations won't work to a
proper degree.
endless count of errors! I might use them differently than you, but I
won't dismiss them.
Post by bigdog
Naah! And I don't deal with theories like the WCR does. I like factsPost by mainframetech
NOT DISMISS EVIDENCE, THOUGH I MIGHT USE IT DIFFERENTLY THAN YOU.
You use it to dismiss it because it gets in the way of your theories.Post by bigdog
are so predictable.
As are you, having once again made yourself WRONG to the world! I DOThat form of experimentation doesn't work well,
particularly when there is an element that wants to make the 'patsy' look
guilty.
WTG. Another of your lame excuses to dismiss inconvenient evidence. Youparticularly when there is an element that wants to make the 'patsy' look
guilty.
are so predictable.
NOT DISMISS EVIDENCE, THOUGH I MIGHT USE IT DIFFERENTLY THAN YOU.
and reality.
unsupportable theories. You believe the things you do because you WANT TO
believe them. There is no other reason for it.
Anthony Marsh
2018-05-20 00:54:29 UTC
Post by bigdog
need it posted in one thread.
Maybe you don't see links because McAdams erased those messages. ToPost by mainframetech
have a leg to stand on in this instance.
faking it?
The link to the video was posted by BOZ in the OP. How many times do youPost by bigdog
test.
WRONG! Of course not. I'm more interested in showing that you don'tPost by mainframetech
it, and if a bullet struck a stone in the paving, there is no guarantee
what would happen to the bullet. Do we know the type of paving? some are
harder than others depending on the content of the mixture they used.
That's only 2 of the possible mistakes in setting up a duplication of an
event. That's why I want the cites and links, to see what lengths they
went to in the testing.
Sounds like you're groping for an excuse to dismiss the results of thePost by bigdog
A complete unknown. Asphalt paving sometimes has embedded stones inPost by bigdog
stop conspiracy hobbyists from claiming that Oswald's shooting feat has
never been duplicated. What the Haag's do is test specific elements of the
shooting in a controlled situation. For example they showed what happens
when a bullet strikes an asphalt surface at the approximate angle a first
shot miss by Oswald would have hit the pavement on Elm St. There was no
ricochet. The bullet made a crater in the asphalt and disintegrated. Marsh
has long challenged us to show him that bullet but as the Haag's
experiment indicated, if the bullet struck pavement, it likely would have
disintegrated.
Post by mainframetech
changes its nature? Forget it! There is no way to exactly match the
original situation, so that whatever is done is still the author's
creation.
Of course there is no way to exactly match a shooting yet that doesn'tPost by bigdog
important part of the scientific process. They make their methods known so
that others can replicate what they do to see if they get the same
results. That is also standard scientific practice.
Who are you trying to kid? You think changing the name of somethingPost by mainframetech
show what the author wants to show.
They aren't simulations or animations. They are experiments which are anPost by bigdog
If you have a problem with their methodology, why don't you point out
their flaws?
No need. Using a simulation or animation is automatically going toIf you have a problem with their methodology, why don't you point out
their flaws?
show what the author wants to show.
important part of the scientific process. They make their methods known so
that others can replicate what they do to see if they get the same
results. That is also standard scientific practice.
changes its nature? Forget it! There is no way to exactly match the
original situation, so that whatever is done is still the author's
creation.
stop conspiracy hobbyists from claiming that Oswald's shooting feat has
never been duplicated. What the Haag's do is test specific elements of the
shooting in a controlled situation. For example they showed what happens
when a bullet strikes an asphalt surface at the approximate angle a first
shot miss by Oswald would have hit the pavement on Elm St. There was no
ricochet. The bullet made a crater in the asphalt and disintegrated. Marsh
has long challenged us to show him that bullet but as the Haag's
experiment indicated, if the bullet struck pavement, it likely would have
disintegrated.
it, and if a bullet struck a stone in the paving, there is no guarantee
what would happen to the bullet. Do we know the type of paving? some are
harder than others depending on the content of the mixture they used.
That's only 2 of the possible mistakes in setting up a duplication of an
event. That's why I want the cites and links, to see what lengths they
went to in the testing.
test.
have a leg to stand on in this instance.
Post by bigdog
was fired.
I don't see the cites and links to Haag. Does that mean that you werePost by mainframetech
certain problems, which have been laid out for you many times. Funny how
you forget that when trying to pretend you're the guru. And as I noted
above, "some other things".
The problems you have imagined would have no effect on the bullet once itPost by bigdog
testing? They used the same make of Carcano rifle and bullets from the
same batch. Oswald's Carcano was capable of firing the same bullets used
in the test. They were testing what happened after the bullets left the
muzzle. What difference would it make which rifle it came from.
Oswald's rifle was NOT as capable as the replacement rifle. It hadGimme a link to the Haag testing, I'd like to see if they considered
the faulty MC rifle and some other things.
What the hell would the alleged faults have to do with what they werethe faulty MC rifle and some other things.
testing? They used the same make of Carcano rifle and bullets from the
same batch. Oswald's Carcano was capable of firing the same bullets used
in the test. They were testing what happened after the bullets left the
muzzle. What difference would it make which rifle it came from.
certain problems, which have been laid out for you many times. Funny how
you forget that when trying to pretend you're the guru. And as I noted
above, "some other things".
was fired.
faking it?
need it posted in one thread.
protect you guys.
Post by bigdog
Also if you listen to the radio interview, from the 17:25 to 17:50 mark,
Luke Haag answers the question you asked in another thread regarding the
fragmented bullet found in the limo. He tells us that 90 of the 160 grains
from a Carcano are missing from what was recovered indicating those
fragments left the limo.
Close enough for a WC defender. Make sure you never read the originalAlso if you listen to the radio interview, from the 17:25 to 17:50 mark,
Luke Haag answers the question you asked in another thread regarding the
fragmented bullet found in the limo. He tells us that 90 of the 160 grains
from a Carcano are missing from what was recovered indicating those
fragments left the limo.
documents.
Loading Image...
Post by bigdog
field. You think your opinions are more valid than theirs.
You mean Humes? Ice Bullet? Really, dude?Post by mainframetech
you of digging up the video on the Haags, and it is wrong at the
beginning. It starts with assuming a bullet came out of JFK's neck, or
throat wound, and then hit Connolly. So the simulation was no good from
the start. We've seen the proof that the bullet never left the body of
JFK, so that was impossible.
Save that evidence, so that I can show the foolishness of the LNs and
what they will try to get away with.
So once again you pretend to know better than recognized experts in theirPost by bigdog
count on you.
Add another WRONG to your endless count of errors. I did the work forPost by mainframetech
right when you try to duplicate various parts of an event.
So you figured out your excuse to dismiss the results. I knew I couldPost by bigdog
If you want specifics for the Haag testing, google "Haag ballistics test"
and you'll get all the hits you want. Of course we already know what your
game is. You are searching for an excuse to dismiss the findings of
another recognized expert in his field that doesn't conform to your
beliefs.
Naah! That's already been done. See above. You can't get it exactlyIf you want specifics for the Haag testing, google "Haag ballistics test"
and you'll get all the hits you want. Of course we already know what your
game is. You are searching for an excuse to dismiss the findings of
another recognized expert in his field that doesn't conform to your
beliefs.
right when you try to duplicate various parts of an event.
count on you.
you of digging up the video on the Haags, and it is wrong at the
beginning. It starts with assuming a bullet came out of JFK's neck, or
throat wound, and then hit Connolly. So the simulation was no good from
the start. We've seen the proof that the bullet never left the body of
JFK, so that was impossible.
Save that evidence, so that I can show the foolishness of the LNs and
what they will try to get away with.
field. You think your opinions are more valid than theirs.
Post by bigdog
unsupportable theories. You believe the things you do because you WANT TO
believe them. There is no other reason for it.
Post by mainframetech
and reality.
Not only do you deal in theories, you deal in silly, completelyPost by bigdog
difference.
Thank you. About time you realized it.Post by mainframetech
evidence of the tests to show the foolishness of the testers.
Oh, you don't dismiss the results, you invalidate them. That's a bigPost by bigdog
like Trump making a speech and getting himself in deeper trouble every
time. You tried once again to pretend that I said things I didn't say.
You characterized experimentation as simulations and animations that shows
what the author wants. That sounds pretty dismissive to me.
It doesn't dismiss the tests, only invalidates them. I would use thePost by bigdog
Better to just go with your hunches like you do.
WRONG! You can't help adding to your failure count, can you? It'sPost by mainframetech
"experiments" (Simulations or animations)?
So you think experimentation is overrated in the scientific community.Post by bigdog
Where were you when I pointed out the main error in your thinking ofPost by mainframetech
And that may or may not be what is
the truth, and so can't be relied upon. Think it through.
So you can't find any fault with their experiments.And that may or may not be what is
the truth, and so can't be relied upon. Think it through.
"experiments" (Simulations or animations)?
Better to just go with your hunches like you do.
like Trump making a speech and getting himself in deeper trouble every
time. You tried once again to pretend that I said things I didn't say.
what the author wants. That sounds pretty dismissive to me.
evidence of the tests to show the foolishness of the testers.
difference.
Post by bigdog
Naah!Post by mainframetech
endless count of errors! I might use them differently than you, but I
won't dismiss them.
You just did.Post by bigdog
Oh my! Braggo the mind reader! WRONG yet again. Add one to yourI don't "think experimentation is overrated in the scientific community".
But the attempts to simulate or animate past situations won't work to a
proper degree.
So you are dismissing them.But the attempts to simulate or animate past situations won't work to a
proper degree.
endless count of errors! I might use them differently than you, but I
won't dismiss them.
Post by bigdog
Naah! And I don't deal with theories like the WCR does. I like factsPost by mainframetech
NOT DISMISS EVIDENCE, THOUGH I MIGHT USE IT DIFFERENTLY THAN YOU.
You use it to dismiss it because it gets in the way of your theories.Post by bigdog
are so predictable.
As are you, having once again made yourself WRONG to the world! I DOThat form of experimentation doesn't work well,
particularly when there is an element that wants to make the 'patsy' look
guilty.
WTG. Another of your lame excuses to dismiss inconvenient evidence. Youparticularly when there is an element that wants to make the 'patsy' look
guilty.
are so predictable.
NOT DISMISS EVIDENCE, THOUGH I MIGHT USE IT DIFFERENTLY THAN YOU.
and reality.
unsupportable theories. You believe the things you do because you WANT TO
believe them. There is no other reason for it.
Anthony Marsh
2018-05-17 14:13:09 UTC
Post by mainframetech
it, and if a bullet struck a stone in the paving, there is no guarantee
what would happen to the bullet. Do we know the type of paving? some are
harder than others depending on the content of the mixture they used.
That's only 2 of the possible mistakes in setting up a duplication of an
event. That's why I want the cites and links, to see what lengths they
went to in the testing.
certain problems, which have been laid out for you many times. Funny how
you forget that when trying to pretend you're the guru. And as I noted
above, "some other things".
right when you try to duplicate various parts of an event.
evidence of the tests to show the foolishness of the testers.
And their dishonesty.Post by bigdog
A complete unknown. Asphalt paving sometimes has embedded stones inPost by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
stop conspiracy hobbyists from claiming that Oswald's shooting feat has
never been duplicated. What the Haag's do is test specific elements of the
shooting in a controlled situation. For example they showed what happens
when a bullet strikes an asphalt surface at the approximate angle a first
shot miss by Oswald would have hit the pavement on Elm St. There was no
ricochet. The bullet made a crater in the asphalt and disintegrated. Marsh
has long challenged us to show him that bullet but as the Haag's
experiment indicated, if the bullet struck pavement, it likely would have
disintegrated.
Post by mainframetech
changes its nature? Forget it! There is no way to exactly match the
original situation, so that whatever is done is still the author's
creation.
Of course there is no way to exactly match a shooting yet that doesn'tPost by bigdog
important part of the scientific process. They make their methods known so
that others can replicate what they do to see if they get the same
results. That is also standard scientific practice.
Who are you trying to kid? You think changing the name of somethingPost by mainframetech
show what the author wants to show.
They aren't simulations or animations. They are experiments which are anPost by bigdog
If you have a problem with their methodology, why don't you point out
their flaws?
No need. Using a simulation or animation is automatically going toIf you have a problem with their methodology, why don't you point out
their flaws?
show what the author wants to show.
important part of the scientific process. They make their methods known so
that others can replicate what they do to see if they get the same
results. That is also standard scientific practice.
changes its nature? Forget it! There is no way to exactly match the
original situation, so that whatever is done is still the author's
creation.
stop conspiracy hobbyists from claiming that Oswald's shooting feat has
never been duplicated. What the Haag's do is test specific elements of the
shooting in a controlled situation. For example they showed what happens
when a bullet strikes an asphalt surface at the approximate angle a first
shot miss by Oswald would have hit the pavement on Elm St. There was no
ricochet. The bullet made a crater in the asphalt and disintegrated. Marsh
has long challenged us to show him that bullet but as the Haag's
experiment indicated, if the bullet struck pavement, it likely would have
disintegrated.
it, and if a bullet struck a stone in the paving, there is no guarantee
what would happen to the bullet. Do we know the type of paving? some are
harder than others depending on the content of the mixture they used.
That's only 2 of the possible mistakes in setting up a duplication of an
event. That's why I want the cites and links, to see what lengths they
went to in the testing.
Post by bigdog
testing? They used the same make of Carcano rifle and bullets from the
same batch. Oswald's Carcano was capable of firing the same bullets used
in the test. They were testing what happened after the bullets left the
muzzle. What difference would it make which rifle it came from.
Oswald's rifle was NOT as capable as the replacement rifle. It hadPost by mainframetech
Gimme a link to the Haag testing, I'd like to se if they considered
the faulty MC rifle and some other things.
What the hell would the alleged faults have to do with what they wereGimme a link to the Haag testing, I'd like to se if they considered
the faulty MC rifle and some other things.
testing? They used the same make of Carcano rifle and bullets from the
same batch. Oswald's Carcano was capable of firing the same bullets used
in the test. They were testing what happened after the bullets left the
muzzle. What difference would it make which rifle it came from.
certain problems, which have been laid out for you many times. Funny how
you forget that when trying to pretend you're the guru. And as I noted
above, "some other things".
Post by bigdog
If you want specifics for the Haag testing, google "Haag ballistics test"
and you'll get all the hits you want. Of course we already know what your
game is. You are searching for an excuse to dismiss the findings of
another recognized expert in his field that doesn't conform to your
beliefs.
Naah! That's already been done. See above. You can't get it exactlyIf you want specifics for the Haag testing, google "Haag ballistics test"
and you'll get all the hits you want. Of course we already know what your
game is. You are searching for an excuse to dismiss the findings of
another recognized expert in his field that doesn't conform to your
beliefs.
right when you try to duplicate various parts of an event.
Post by bigdog
what the author wants. That sounds pretty dismissive to me.
It doesn't dismiss the tests, only invalidates them. I would use thePost by mainframetech
like Trump making a speech and getting himself in deeper trouble every
time. You tried once again to pretend that I said things I didn't say.
You characterized experimentation as simulations and animations that showsPost by bigdog
Better to just go with your hunches like you do.
WRONG! You can't help adding to your failure count, can you? It'sPost by mainframetech
"experiments" (Simulations or animations)?
So you think experimentation is overrated in the scientific community.Post by bigdog
Where were you when I pointed out the main error in your thinking ofPost by mainframetech
And that may or may not be what is
the truth, and so can't be relied upon. Think it through.
So you can't find any fault with their experiments.And that may or may not be what is
the truth, and so can't be relied upon. Think it through.
"experiments" (Simulations or animations)?
Better to just go with your hunches like you do.
like Trump making a speech and getting himself in deeper trouble every
time. You tried once again to pretend that I said things I didn't say.
what the author wants. That sounds pretty dismissive to me.
evidence of the tests to show the foolishness of the testers.
Post by mainframetech
endless count of errors! I might use them differently than you, but I
won't dismiss them.
NOT DIAMISS EVIDENCE, THOUGH I MIGHT USE IT DIFFERENTLY THAN YOU.
Chris
Post by bigdog
Oh my! Braggo the mind reader! WRONG yet again. Add one to yourPost by mainframetech
I don't "think experimentation is overrated in the scientific community".
But the attempts to simulate or animate past situations won't work to a
proper degree.
So you are dismissing them.I don't "think experimentation is overrated in the scientific community".
But the attempts to simulate or animate past situations won't work to a
proper degree.
endless count of errors! I might use them differently than you, but I
won't dismiss them.
Post by bigdog
are so predictable.
As are you, having once again made yourself WRONG to the world! I DOPost by mainframetech
That form of experimentation doesn't work well,
particularly when there is an element that wants to make the 'patsy' look
guilty.
WTG. Another of your lame excuses to dismiss inconvenient evidence. YouThat form of experimentation doesn't work well,
particularly when there is an element that wants to make the 'patsy' look
guilty.
are so predictable.
NOT DIAMISS EVIDENCE, THOUGH I MIGHT USE IT DIFFERENTLY THAN YOU.
Chris
Anthony Marsh
2018-05-17 20:04:10 UTC
Post by bigdog
testing? They used the same make of Carcano rifle and bullets from the
same batch. Oswald's Carcano was capable of firing the same bullets used
in the test. They were testing what happened after the bullets left the
muzzle. What difference would it make which rifle it came from.
If you want specifics for the Haag testing, google "Haag ballistics test"
and you'll get all the hits you want. Of course we already know what your
game is. You are searching for an excuse to dismiss the findings of
another recognized expert in his field that doesn't conform to your
beliefs.
what the author wants. That sounds pretty dismissive to me.
No, we are dismissing you. You are now dismissed.Post by mainframetech
the faulty MC rifle and some other things.
What the hell would the alleged faults have to do with what they werePost by bigdog
stop conspiracy hobbyists from claiming that Oswald's shooting feat has
never been duplicated. What the Haag's do is test specific elements of the
shooting in a controlled situation. For example they showed what happens
when a bullet strikes an asphalt surface at the approximate angle a first
shot miss by Oswald would have hit the pavement on Elm St. There was no
ricochet. The bullet made a crater in the asphalt and disintegrated. Marsh
has long challenged us to show him that bullet but as the Haag's
experiment indicated, if the bullet struck pavement, it likely would have
disintegrated.
Gimme a link to the Haag testing, I'd like to se if they consideredPost by mainframetech
changes its nature? Forget it! There is no way to exactly match the
original situation, so that whatever is done is still the author's
creation.
Of course there is no way to exactly match a shooting yet that doesn'tPost by bigdog
important part of the scientific process. They make their methods known so
that others can replicate what they do to see if they get the same
results. That is also standard scientific practice.
Who are you trying to kid? You think changing the name of somethingPost by mainframetech
show what the author wants to show.
They aren't simulations or animations. They are experiments which are anPost by bigdog
If you have a problem with their methodology, why don't you point out
their flaws?
No need. Using a simulation or animation is automatically going toIf you have a problem with their methodology, why don't you point out
their flaws?
show what the author wants to show.
important part of the scientific process. They make their methods known so
that others can replicate what they do to see if they get the same
results. That is also standard scientific practice.
changes its nature? Forget it! There is no way to exactly match the
original situation, so that whatever is done is still the author's
creation.
stop conspiracy hobbyists from claiming that Oswald's shooting feat has
never been duplicated. What the Haag's do is test specific elements of the
shooting in a controlled situation. For example they showed what happens
when a bullet strikes an asphalt surface at the approximate angle a first
shot miss by Oswald would have hit the pavement on Elm St. There was no
ricochet. The bullet made a crater in the asphalt and disintegrated. Marsh
has long challenged us to show him that bullet but as the Haag's
experiment indicated, if the bullet struck pavement, it likely would have
disintegrated.
the faulty MC rifle and some other things.
testing? They used the same make of Carcano rifle and bullets from the
same batch. Oswald's Carcano was capable of firing the same bullets used
in the test. They were testing what happened after the bullets left the
muzzle. What difference would it make which rifle it came from.
If you want specifics for the Haag testing, google "Haag ballistics test"
and you'll get all the hits you want. Of course we already know what your
game is. You are searching for an excuse to dismiss the findings of
another recognized expert in his field that doesn't conform to your
beliefs.
Post by mainframetech
like Trump making a speech and getting himself in deeper trouble every
time. You tried once again to pretend that I said things I didn't say.
You characterized experimentation as simulations and animations that showsPost by bigdog
Better to just go with your hunches like you do.
WRONG! You can't help adding to your failure count, can you? It'sPost by mainframetech
"experiments" (Simulations or animations)?
So you think experimentation is overrated in the scientific community.Post by bigdog
Where were you when I pointed out the main error in your thinking ofPost by mainframetech
And that may or may not be what is
the truth, and so can't be relied upon. Think it through.
So you can't find any fault with their experiments.And that may or may not be what is
the truth, and so can't be relied upon. Think it through.
"experiments" (Simulations or animations)?
Better to just go with your hunches like you do.
like Trump making a speech and getting himself in deeper trouble every
time. You tried once again to pretend that I said things I didn't say.
what the author wants. That sounds pretty dismissive to me.
Post by mainframetech
I don't "think experimentation is overrated in the scientific community".
But the attempts to simulate or animate past situations won't work to a
proper degree.
So you are dismissing them.I don't "think experimentation is overrated in the scientific community".
But the attempts to simulate or animate past situations won't work to a
proper degree.
Post by bigdog
are so predictable.
Post by mainframetech
That form of experimentation doesn't work well,
particularly when there is an element that wants to make the 'patsy' look
guilty.
WTG. Another of your lame excuses to dismiss inconvenient evidence. YouThat form of experimentation doesn't work well,
particularly when there is an element that wants to make the 'patsy' look
guilty.
are so predictable.
OHLeeRedux
2018-05-18 15:12:16 UTC
Post by Anthony Marsh
The laughing-stock of this group dismisses someone. Oh. How very relevant.Post by bigdog
testing? They used the same make of Carcano rifle and bullets from the
same batch. Oswald's Carcano was capable of firing the same bullets used
in the test. They were testing what happened after the bullets left the
muzzle. What difference would it make which rifle it came from.
If you want specifics for the Haag testing, google "Haag ballistics test"
and you'll get all the hits you want. Of course we already know what your
game is. You are searching for an excuse to dismiss the findings of
another recognized expert in his field that doesn't conform to your
beliefs.
what the author wants. That sounds pretty dismissive to me.
No, we are dismissing you. You are now dismissed.Post by mainframetech
the faulty MC rifle and some other things.
What the hell would the alleged faults have to do with what they werePost by bigdog
stop conspiracy hobbyists from claiming that Oswald's shooting feat has
never been duplicated. What the Haag's do is test specific elements of the
shooting in a controlled situation. For example they showed what happens
when a bullet strikes an asphalt surface at the approximate angle a first
shot miss by Oswald would have hit the pavement on Elm St. There was no
ricochet. The bullet made a crater in the asphalt and disintegrated. Marsh
has long challenged us to show him that bullet but as the Haag's
experiment indicated, if the bullet struck pavement, it likely would have
disintegrated.
Gimme a link to the Haag testing, I'd like to se if they consideredPost by mainframetech
changes its nature? Forget it! There is no way to exactly match the
original situation, so that whatever is done is still the author's
creation.
Of course there is no way to exactly match a shooting yet that doesn'tPost by bigdog
important part of the scientific process. They make their methods known so
that others can replicate what they do to see if they get the same
results. That is also standard scientific practice.
Who are you trying to kid? You think changing the name of somethingPost by mainframetech
show what the author wants to show.
They aren't simulations or animations. They are experiments which are anPost by bigdog
If you have a problem with their methodology, why don't you point out
their flaws?
No need. Using a simulation or animation is automatically going toIf you have a problem with their methodology, why don't you point out
their flaws?
show what the author wants to show.
important part of the scientific process. They make their methods known so
that others can replicate what they do to see if they get the same
results. That is also standard scientific practice.
changes its nature? Forget it! There is no way to exactly match the
original situation, so that whatever is done is still the author's
creation.
stop conspiracy hobbyists from claiming that Oswald's shooting feat has
never been duplicated. What the Haag's do is test specific elements of the
shooting in a controlled situation. For example they showed what happens
when a bullet strikes an asphalt surface at the approximate angle a first
shot miss by Oswald would have hit the pavement on Elm St. There was no
ricochet. The bullet made a crater in the asphalt and disintegrated. Marsh
has long challenged us to show him that bullet but as the Haag's
experiment indicated, if the bullet struck pavement, it likely would have
disintegrated.
the faulty MC rifle and some other things.
testing? They used the same make of Carcano rifle and bullets from the
same batch. Oswald's Carcano was capable of firing the same bullets used
in the test. They were testing what happened after the bullets left the
muzzle. What difference would it make which rifle it came from.
If you want specifics for the Haag testing, google "Haag ballistics test"
and you'll get all the hits you want. Of course we already know what your
game is. You are searching for an excuse to dismiss the findings of
another recognized expert in his field that doesn't conform to your
beliefs.
Post by mainframetech
like Trump making a speech and getting himself in deeper trouble every
time. You tried once again to pretend that I said things I didn't say.
You characterized experimentation as simulations and animations that showsPost by bigdog
Better to just go with your hunches like you do.
WRONG! You can't help adding to your failure count, can you? It'sPost by mainframetech
"experiments" (Simulations or animations)?
So you think experimentation is overrated in the scientific community.Post by bigdog
Where were you when I pointed out the main error in your thinking ofPost by mainframetech
And that may or may not be what is
the truth, and so can't be relied upon. Think it through.
So you can't find any fault with their experiments.And that may or may not be what is
the truth, and so can't be relied upon. Think it through.
"experiments" (Simulations or animations)?
Better to just go with your hunches like you do.
like Trump making a speech and getting himself in deeper trouble every
time. You tried once again to pretend that I said things I didn't say.
what the author wants. That sounds pretty dismissive to me.
Post by mainframetech
I don't "think experimentation is overrated in the scientific community".
But the attempts to simulate or animate past situations won't work to a
proper degree.
So you are dismissing them.I don't "think experimentation is overrated in the scientific community".
But the attempts to simulate or animate past situations won't work to a
proper degree.
Anthony Marsh
2018-05-17 02:05:11 UTC
Post by mainframetech
the faulty MC rifle and some other things.
Is this a prank? You're asking a WC defender to back up anything?Post by bigdog
stop conspiracy hobbyists from claiming that Oswald's shooting feat has
never been duplicated. What the Haag's do is test specific elements of the
shooting in a controlled situation. For example they showed what happens
when a bullet strikes an asphalt surface at the approximate angle a first
shot miss by Oswald would have hit the pavement on Elm St. There was no
ricochet. The bullet made a crater in the asphalt and disintegrated. Marsh
has long challenged us to show him that bullet but as the Haag's
experiment indicated, if the bullet struck pavement, it likely would have
disintegrated.
Gimme a link to the Haag testing, I'd like to se if they consideredPost by mainframetech
changes its nature? Forget it! There is no way to exactly match the
original situation, so that whatever is done is still the author's
creation.
Of course there is no way to exactly match a shooting yet that doesn'tPost by bigdog
important part of the scientific process. They make their methods known so
that others can replicate what they do to see if they get the same
results. That is also standard scientific practice.
Who are you trying to kid? You think changing the name of somethingPost by mainframetech
show what the author wants to show.
They aren't simulations or animations. They are experiments which are anPost by bigdog
If you have a problem with their methodology, why don't you point out
their flaws?
No need. Using a simulation or animation is automatically going toIf you have a problem with their methodology, why don't you point out
their flaws?
show what the author wants to show.
important part of the scientific process. They make their methods known so
that others can replicate what they do to see if they get the same
results. That is also standard scientific practice.
changes its nature? Forget it! There is no way to exactly match the
original situation, so that whatever is done is still the author's
creation.
stop conspiracy hobbyists from claiming that Oswald's shooting feat has
never been duplicated. What the Haag's do is test specific elements of the
shooting in a controlled situation. For example they showed what happens
when a bullet strikes an asphalt surface at the approximate angle a first
shot miss by Oswald would have hit the pavement on Elm St. There was no
ricochet. The bullet made a crater in the asphalt and disintegrated. Marsh
has long challenged us to show him that bullet but as the Haag's
experiment indicated, if the bullet struck pavement, it likely would have
disintegrated.
the faulty MC rifle and some other things.
http://www.washingtondecoded.com/site/2016/11/haag.html
Excellent graphics and links.
Gotta love Max even when he's wrong.
Post by mainframetech
like Trump making a speech and getting himself in deeper trouble every
time. You tried once again to pretend that I said things I didn't say.
I don't "think experimentation is overrated in the scientific community".
But the attempts to simulate or animate past situations won't work to a
proper degree. That form of experimentation doesn't work well,
particularly when there is an element that wants to make the 'patsy' look
guilty.
Chris
Post by bigdog
Better to just go with your hunches like you do.
WRONG! You can't help adding to your failure count, can you? It'sPost by mainframetech
"experiments" (Simulations or animations)?
So you think experimentation is overrated in the scientific community.Post by bigdog
Where were you when I pointed out the main error in your thinking ofPost by mainframetech
And that may or may not be what is
the truth, and so can't be relied upon. Think it through.
So you can't find any fault with their experiments.And that may or may not be what is
the truth, and so can't be relied upon. Think it through.
"experiments" (Simulations or animations)?
Better to just go with your hunches like you do.
like Trump making a speech and getting himself in deeper trouble every
time. You tried once again to pretend that I said things I didn't say.
I don't "think experimentation is overrated in the scientific community".
But the attempts to simulate or animate past situations won't work to a
proper degree. That form of experimentation doesn't work well,
particularly when there is an element that wants to make the 'patsy' look
guilty.
Chris
Anthony Marsh
2018-05-15 13:09:48 UTC
Post by bigdog
stop conspiracy hobbyists from claiming that Oswald's shooting feat has
never been duplicated. What the Haag's do is test specific elements of the
shooting in a controlled situation. For example they showed what happens
when a bullet strikes an asphalt surface at the approximate angle a first
shot miss by Oswald would have hit the pavement on Elm St. There was no
ricochet. The bullet made a crater in the asphalt and disintegrated. Marsh
has long challenged us to show him that bullet but as the Haag's
experiment indicated, if the bullet struck pavement, it likely would have
disintegrated.
Phony test. But if it disintegrated how could it then go on to hit thePost by mainframetech
changes its nature? Forget it! There is no way to exactly match the
original situation, so that whatever is done is still the author's
creation.
Of course there is no way to exactly match a shooting yet that doesn'tPost by bigdog
important part of the scientific process. They make their methods known so
that others can replicate what they do to see if they get the same
results. That is also standard scientific practice.
Who are you trying to kid? You think changing the name of somethingPost by mainframetech
show what the author wants to show.
They aren't simulations or animations. They are experiments which are anPost by bigdog
If you have a problem with their methodology, why don't you point out
their flaws?
No need. Using a simulation or animation is automatically going toIf you have a problem with their methodology, why don't you point out
their flaws?
show what the author wants to show.
important part of the scientific process. They make their methods known so
that others can replicate what they do to see if they get the same
results. That is also standard scientific practice.
changes its nature? Forget it! There is no way to exactly match the
original situation, so that whatever is done is still the author's
creation.
stop conspiracy hobbyists from claiming that Oswald's shooting feat has
never been duplicated. What the Haag's do is test specific elements of the
shooting in a controlled situation. For example they showed what happens
when a bullet strikes an asphalt surface at the approximate angle a first
shot miss by Oswald would have hit the pavement on Elm St. There was no
ricochet. The bullet made a crater in the asphalt and disintegrated. Marsh
has long challenged us to show him that bullet but as the Haag's
experiment indicated, if the bullet struck pavement, it likely would have
disintegrated.
curb. Other WC defenders have claimed that a bullet or fragment hit the
curb, pershaps from the head shot. SHOW me that bullet.
Some morons claim the miss did not hit anything. Show me that bullet.
Have you ever seen Mythbusters? They do tests and then show us the
bullet. Remember the Aussies test of the SBT? They showed us the bullet
and I think all you SBT lovers were quite happy with it.
It came out intact, but slightly bent. Could you design a better test,
oh lazy one?
Post by bigdog
I think certain people LIE about experimentation. Like Lattimer. orPost by mainframetech
"experiments" (Simulations or animations)?
So you think experimentation is overrated in the scientific community.Post by bigdog
Where were you when I pointed out the main error in your thinking ofPost by mainframetech
And that may or may not be what is
the truth, and so can't be relied upon. Think it through.
So you can't find any fault with their experiments.And that may or may not be what is
the truth, and so can't be relied upon. Think it through.
"experiments" (Simulations or animations)?
Haag. Or Max. Or the WC.
Anthony Marsh
2018-05-13 19:36:02 UTC
Post by bigdog
important part of the scientific process. They make their methods known so
that others can replicate what they do to see if they get the same
results. That is also standard scientific practice.
But I have. I've written about this before.Post by mainframetech
show what the author wants to show.
They aren't simulations or animations. They are experiments which are anPost by bigdog
If you have a problem with their methodology, why don't you point out
their flaws?
No need. Using a simulation or animation is automatically going toIf you have a problem with their methodology, why don't you point out
their flaws?
show what the author wants to show.
important part of the scientific process. They make their methods known so
that others can replicate what they do to see if they get the same
results. That is also standard scientific practice.
Post by mainframetech
And that may or may not be what is
the truth, and so can't be relied upon. Think it through.
So you can't find any fault with their experiments.And that may or may not be what is
the truth, and so can't be relied upon. Think it through.
But at least I do appreciate that they TRIED to actually test something,
like Mythbusters. The ricochet off the pavement was a little bit flawed.