Discussion:
THE MISSING BULLET by HAAGS EXPERTS
(too old to reply)
BOZ
2018-05-06 19:05:52 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message

bigdog
2018-05-08 01:38:46 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by BOZ
http://youtu.be/bfz79eUveM8
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.
Anthony Marsh
2018-05-09 14:40:17 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bigdog
Post by BOZ
http://youtu.be/bfz79eUveM8
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.
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.
mainframetech
2018-05-08 23:25:15 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by BOZ
http://youtu.be/bfz79eUveM8
Simulations like animations always show what the author wants to show.

Chris
bigdog
2018-05-09 23:16:43 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mainframetech
Post by BOZ
http://youtu.be/bfz79eUveM8
Simulations like animations always show what the author wants to show.
If you have a problem with their methodology, why don't you point out
their flaws?
Jason Burke
2018-05-10 19:32:22 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by BOZ
http://youtu.be/bfz79eUveM8
Simulations like animations always show what the author wants to show.
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 and
saying "la, la, la, I am not listening".
Anthony Marsh
2018-05-11 17:50:27 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Jason Burke
Post by bigdog
Post by BOZ
http://youtu.be/bfz79eUveM8
    Simulations like animations always show what the author wants to
show.
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 and
saying "la, la, la, I am not listening".
And you close your eyes so that you don't have to look at the evidence.
mainframetech
2018-05-11 02:58:45 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by BOZ
http://youtu.be/bfz79eUveM8
Simulations like animations always show what the author wants to show.
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 to
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
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by BOZ
http://youtu.be/bfz79eUveM8
Simulations like animations always show what the author wants to show.
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 to
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 the
ladder move forward.
Post by mainframetech
Chris
bigdog
2018-05-12 14:27:58 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by BOZ
http://youtu.be/bfz79eUveM8
Simulations like animations always show what the author wants to show.
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 to
show what the author wants to show.
They aren't simulations or animations. They are experiments which are an
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.
mainframetech
2018-05-13 00:02:33 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by BOZ
http://youtu.be/bfz79eUveM8
Simulations like animations always show what the author wants to show.
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 to
show what the author wants to show.
They aren't simulations or animations. They are experiments which are an
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 something
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
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.
Where were you when I pointed out the main error in your thinking of
"experiments" (Simulations or animations)?

Chris
bigdog
2018-05-14 03:13:49 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by BOZ
http://youtu.be/bfz79eUveM8
Simulations like animations always show what the author wants to show.
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 to
show what the author wants to show.
They aren't simulations or animations. They are experiments which are an
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 something
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't
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
Post by bigdog
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.
Where were you when I pointed out the main error in your thinking of
"experiments" (Simulations or animations)?
So you think experimentation is overrated in the scientific community.
Better to just go with your hunches like you do.
mainframetech
2018-05-15 01:48:30 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by BOZ
http://youtu.be/bfz79eUveM8
Simulations like animations always show what the author wants to show.
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 to
show what the author wants to show.
They aren't simulations or animations. They are experiments which are an
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 something
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't
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 considered
the faulty MC rifle and some other things.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
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.
Where were you when I pointed out the main error in your thinking of
"experiments" (Simulations or animations)?
So you think experimentation is overrated in the scientific community.
Better to just go with your hunches like you do.
WRONG! You can't help adding to your failure count, can you? It's
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
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by BOZ
http://youtu.be/bfz79eUveM8
Simulations like animations always show what the author wants to show.
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 to
show what the author wants to show.
They aren't simulations or animations. They are experiments which are an
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 something
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't
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 considered
the faulty MC rifle and some other things.
What the hell would the alleged faults have to do with what they were
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
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
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.
Where were you when I pointed out the main error in your thinking of
"experiments" (Simulations or animations)?
So you think experimentation is overrated in the scientific community.
Better to just go with your hunches like you do.
WRONG! You can't help adding to your failure count, can you? It's
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.
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.
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. You
are so predictable.
mainframetech
2018-05-16 02:46:55 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by BOZ
http://youtu.be/bfz79eUveM8
Simulations like animations always show what the author wants to show.
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 to
show what the author wants to show.
They aren't simulations or animations. They are experiments which are an
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 something
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't
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.
A complete unknown. Asphalt paving sometimes has embedded stones in
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
Post 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 were
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 had
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 exactly
right when you try to duplicate various parts of an event.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
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.
Where were you when I pointed out the main error in your thinking of
"experiments" (Simulations or animations)?
So you think experimentation is overrated in the scientific community.
Better to just go with your hunches like you do.
WRONG! You can't help adding to your failure count, can you? It's
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 the
evidence of the tests to show the foolishness of the testers.
Post by bigdog
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.
Oh my! Braggo the mind reader! WRONG yet again. Add one to your
endless count of errors! I might use them differently than you, but I
won't dismiss them.
Post by bigdog
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. You
are so predictable.
As are you, having once again made yourself WRONG to the world! I DO
NOT DIAMISS EVIDENCE, THOUGH I MIGHT USE IT DIFFERENTLY THAN YOU.

Chris
bigdog
2018-05-17 02:55:49 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by BOZ
http://youtu.be/bfz79eUveM8
Simulations like animations always show what the author wants to show.
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 to
show what the author wants to show.
They aren't simulations or animations. They are experiments which are an
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 something
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't
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.
A complete unknown. Asphalt paving sometimes has embedded stones in
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 the
test.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post 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 were
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 had
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 it
was fired.
Post by mainframetech
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 exactly
right when you try to duplicate various parts of an event.
So you figured out your excuse to dismiss the results. I knew I could
count on you.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
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.
Where were you when I pointed out the main error in your thinking of
"experiments" (Simulations or animations)?
So you think experimentation is overrated in the scientific community.
Better to just go with your hunches like you do.
WRONG! You can't help adding to your failure count, can you? It's
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 the
evidence of the tests to show the foolishness of the testers.
Oh, you don't dismiss the results, you invalidate them. That's a big
difference.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
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.
Oh my! Braggo the mind reader! WRONG yet again. Add one to your
endless count of errors! I might use them differently than you, but I
won't dismiss them.
You just did.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
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. You
are so predictable.
As are you, having once again made yourself WRONG to the world! I DO
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.
mainframetech
2018-05-18 00:15:33 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by BOZ
http://youtu.be/bfz79eUveM8
Simulations like animations always show what the author wants to show.
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 to
show what the author wants to show.
They aren't simulations or animations. They are experiments which are an
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 something
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't
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.
A complete unknown. Asphalt paving sometimes has embedded stones in
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 the
test.
WRONG! Of course not. I'm more interested in showing that you don't
have a leg to stand on in this instance.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Gimme 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 were
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 had
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 it
was fired.
I don't see the cites and links to Haag. Does that mean that you were
faking it?
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
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 exactly
right when you try to duplicate various parts of an event.
So you figured out your excuse to dismiss the results. I knew I could
count on you.
Add another WRONG to your endless count of errors. I did the work for
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
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
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.
Where were you when I pointed out the main error in your thinking of
"experiments" (Simulations or animations)?
So you think experimentation is overrated in the scientific community.
Better to just go with your hunches like you do.
WRONG! You can't help adding to your failure count, can you? It's
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 the
evidence of the tests to show the foolishness of the testers.
Oh, you don't dismiss the results, you invalidate them. That's a big
difference.
Thank you. About time you realized it.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
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.
Oh my! Braggo the mind reader! WRONG yet again. Add one to your
endless count of errors! I might use them differently than you, but I
won't dismiss them.
You just did.
Naah!
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
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. You
are so predictable.
As are you, having once again made yourself WRONG to the world! I DO
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.
Naah! And I don't deal with theories like the WCR does. I like facts
and reality.

Chris
bigdog
2018-05-19 01:43:27 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by BOZ
http://youtu.be/bfz79eUveM8
Simulations like animations always show what the author wants to show.
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 to
show what the author wants to show.
They aren't simulations or animations. They are experiments which are an
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 something
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't
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.
A complete unknown. Asphalt paving sometimes has embedded stones in
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 the
test.
WRONG! Of course not. I'm more interested in showing that you don't
have a leg to stand on in this instance.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Gimme 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 were
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 had
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 it
was fired.
I don't see the cites and links to Haag. Does that mean that you were
faking it?
The link to the video was posted by BOZ in the OP. How many times do you
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
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
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 exactly
right when you try to duplicate various parts of an event.
So you figured out your excuse to dismiss the results. I knew I could
count on you.
Add another WRONG to your endless count of errors. I did the work for
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 their
field. You think your opinions are more valid than theirs.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
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.
Where were you when I pointed out the main error in your thinking of
"experiments" (Simulations or animations)?
So you think experimentation is overrated in the scientific community.
Better to just go with your hunches like you do.
WRONG! You can't help adding to your failure count, can you? It's
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 the
evidence of the tests to show the foolishness of the testers.
Oh, you don't dismiss the results, you invalidate them. That's a big
difference.
Thank you. About time you realized it.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
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.
Oh my! Braggo the mind reader! WRONG yet again. Add one to your
endless count of errors! I might use them differently than you, but I
won't dismiss them.
You just did.
Naah!
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
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. You
are so predictable.
As are you, having once again made yourself WRONG to the world! I DO
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.
Naah! And I don't deal with theories like the WCR does. I like facts
and reality.
Not only do you deal in theories, you deal in silly, completely
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
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by BOZ
http://youtu.be/bfz79eUveM8
Simulations like animations always show what the author wants to show.
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 to
show what the author wants to show.
They aren't simulations or animations. They are experiments which are an
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 something
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't
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.
A complete unknown. Asphalt paving sometimes has embedded stones in
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 the
test.
WRONG! Of course not. I'm more interested in showing that you don't
have a leg to stand on in this instance.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Gimme 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 were
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 had
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 it
was fired.
I don't see the cites and links to Haag. Does that mean that you were
faking it?
The link to the video was posted by BOZ in the OP. How many times do you
need it posted in one thread.
Maybe you don't see links because McAdams erased those messages. To
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 original
documents.


Loading Image...
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
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 exactly
right when you try to duplicate various parts of an event.
So you figured out your excuse to dismiss the results. I knew I could
count on you.
Add another WRONG to your endless count of errors. I did the work for
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 their
field. You think your opinions are more valid than theirs.
You mean Humes? Ice Bullet? Really, dude?
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
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.
Where were you when I pointed out the main error in your thinking of
"experiments" (Simulations or animations)?
So you think experimentation is overrated in the scientific community.
Better to just go with your hunches like you do.
WRONG! You can't help adding to your failure count, can you? It's
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 the
evidence of the tests to show the foolishness of the testers.
Oh, you don't dismiss the results, you invalidate them. That's a big
difference.
Thank you. About time you realized it.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
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.
Oh my! Braggo the mind reader! WRONG yet again. Add one to your
endless count of errors! I might use them differently than you, but I
won't dismiss them.
You just did.
Naah!
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
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. You
are so predictable.
As are you, having once again made yourself WRONG to the world! I DO
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.
Naah! And I don't deal with theories like the WCR does. I like facts
and reality.
Not only do you deal in theories, you deal in silly, completely
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
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by BOZ
http://youtu.be/bfz79eUveM8
Simulations like animations always show what the author wants to show.
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 to
show what the author wants to show.
They aren't simulations or animations. They are experiments which are an
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 something
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't
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.
A complete unknown. Asphalt paving sometimes has embedded stones in
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
Post 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 were
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 had
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 exactly
right when you try to duplicate various parts of an event.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
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.
Where were you when I pointed out the main error in your thinking of
"experiments" (Simulations or animations)?
So you think experimentation is overrated in the scientific community.
Better to just go with your hunches like you do.
WRONG! You can't help adding to your failure count, can you? It's
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 the
evidence of the tests to show the foolishness of the testers.
And their dishonesty.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
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.
Oh my! Braggo the mind reader! WRONG yet again. Add one to your
endless count of errors! I might use them differently than you, but I
won't dismiss them.
Post by bigdog
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. You
are so predictable.
As are you, having once again made yourself WRONG to the world! I DO
NOT DIAMISS EVIDENCE, THOUGH I MIGHT USE IT DIFFERENTLY THAN YOU.
Chris
Anthony Marsh
2018-05-17 20:04:10 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by BOZ
http://youtu.be/bfz79eUveM8
Simulations like animations always show what the author wants to show.
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 to
show what the author wants to show.
They aren't simulations or animations. They are experiments which are an
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 something
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't
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 considered
the faulty MC rifle and some other things.
What the hell would the alleged faults have to do with what they were
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
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
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.
Where were you when I pointed out the main error in your thinking of
"experiments" (Simulations or animations)?
So you think experimentation is overrated in the scientific community.
Better to just go with your hunches like you do.
WRONG! You can't help adding to your failure count, can you? It's
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.
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.
No, we are dismissing you. You are now dismissed.
Post by bigdog
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. You
are so predictable.
OHLeeRedux
2018-05-18 15:12:16 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by BOZ
http://youtu.be/bfz79eUveM8
Simulations like animations always show what the author wants to show.
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 to
show what the author wants to show.
They aren't simulations or animations. They are experiments which are an
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 something
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't
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 considered
the faulty MC rifle and some other things.
What the hell would the alleged faults have to do with what they were
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
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
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.
Where were you when I pointed out the main error in your thinking of
"experiments" (Simulations or animations)?
So you think experimentation is overrated in the scientific community.
Better to just go with your hunches like you do.
WRONG! You can't help adding to your failure count, can you? It's
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.
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.
No, we are dismissing you. You are now dismissed.
The laughing-stock of this group dismisses someone. Oh. How very relevant.
Anthony Marsh
2018-05-17 02:05:11 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by BOZ
http://youtu.be/bfz79eUveM8
Simulations like animations always show what the author wants to show.
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 to
show what the author wants to show.
They aren't simulations or animations. They are experiments which are an
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 something
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't
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 considered
the faulty MC rifle and some other things.
Is this a prank? You're asking a WC defender to back up anything?


http://www.washingtondecoded.com/site/2016/11/haag.html

Excellent graphics and links.
Gotta love Max even when he's wrong.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
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.
Where were you when I pointed out the main error in your thinking of
"experiments" (Simulations or animations)?
So you think experimentation is overrated in the scientific community.
Better to just go with your hunches like you do.
WRONG! You can't help adding to your failure count, can you? It's
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
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by BOZ
http://youtu.be/bfz79eUveM8
Simulations like animations always show what the author wants to show.
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 to
show what the author wants to show.
They aren't simulations or animations. They are experiments which are an
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 something
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't
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 the
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
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
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.
Where were you when I pointed out the main error in your thinking of
"experiments" (Simulations or animations)?
So you think experimentation is overrated in the scientific community.
I think certain people LIE about experimentation. Like Lattimer. or
Haag. Or Max. Or the WC.
Post by bigdog
Better to just go with your hunches like you do.
Anthony Marsh
2018-05-13 19:36:02 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by BOZ
http://youtu.be/bfz79eUveM8
Simulations like animations always show what the author wants to show.
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 to
show what the author wants to show.
They aren't simulations or animations. They are experiments which are an
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.
But I have. I've written about this before.
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.
Loading...