On May 9, 3:40=A0pm, cdddraftsman <cdddrafts...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> Herbert waltzes around the subject !
>
> On Apr 30, 8:05=A0pm, Herbert Blenner <a1ea...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
> > On Apr 27, 9:26=A0pm, cdddraftsman <cdddrafts...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
> > > On Apr 27, 9:09 am, Herbert Blenner <a1ea...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
> > > > On Apr 26, 10:31 pm, cdddraftsman <cdddrafts...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
> > > > >http://mysite.verizon.net/a1eah71/punchingholes.htm
> > > > > Figures 1, 2, 5, 6, 11
>
> > > > > AKA : Blenners Big Boo Boo !
>
> > > > > It's a shame .
>
> > > > > Those festidiously boring computations , all negated by using
> > > > > drawings :
>
> > > > > Not To Scale ..... Anatomically Imprecise ...... Disregarding
JFK'=
s
> > > > > Unique Anatomy .....
>
> > > > > To Build A =A0Medically and Ballistically Imprecise Picture ....
>
> > > > > Using a Unique Anatomy of the President not present ......
>
> > > > On these points, Lowry, you are showing failure to understand that
I=
> > > > used CE385, CE 386 and CE 388 to demonstrate proper methods of
> > > > forensic analysis.
> > > > In particular, I used figure 1 to illustrate calculation of the
> > > > incidence angle of the bullet from the dimensions of the
elliptical
> > > > hole
>
> > > How precise were they to begin with ? What if they are wrong ?
Please
> > > direct us mere mortals to the section were you talk about possible
> > > errors in your work , I'd like to review that again .
>
> > Frankly, Tom, you would not recognize an error analysis unless it
> > jumped up and waived a flag. I quote from Punching Holes.
>
> > > > and geometrically derived the relation****p between the
> > > > declination angle of the bullet, the incidence angle upon and the
> > > > orientation angle of the victim. Apparently you have not made it
to
> > > > figure 2 where I applied my angular analysis to various locations
fo=
r
> > > > the entry wound. In any event, it is your turn to show how the
Rydbe=
rg
> > > > drawings could have negated Euclid.
>
> > > You don't have to negate Euclid to negate your work as described
> > > below .
>
> > > A personal question if you don't mind :
>
> > > Do you ever dream of being mentioned along with people like Euclid
> > > after you're long gone ? Just curious .
>
> > I do mind that you ignore the geometric relation****p between the
> > declination angle of the bullet, the incidence angle of the strike and
t=
he
> > orientation angle of the victim. This is the substance of my work
boiled=
> > down to one of two simple equations with three variables. Physical
> > relation****ps usually do not get as simple as x + y =3D z. So what is
yo=
ur
> > excuse for ignoring this.
>
> I don't need a excuse when work derived from imprecise anatomical
> measurements are used to state what (? We don't know because you don't
> state it in clear terms ?) to come to a conclusion of what (? We don't
> know because you don't state it in clear terms ?)
>
> I'm still wondering what all the mumbo jumbo is about ?
The WC used the same "imprecise anatomical measurements" for their work.
Have you repeatedly criticized and challenged the WC conclusions or did I
wisely use my time leaning to spell hypocrite?
>
>
>
<snip by HB>
>
> > > That's why Prof. Rahn is correct in his analysis , stick to the
solid
> > > physical evidence and you reach a conclusion very quickly .
>
> > Rahn's work is full of conceptional errors that would embarrass an
> > undergraduate student. For example the linear momentum equation
includes=
> > an object that gains momentum without including a corresponding object
> > that lost an equal momentum. This is a violation of the
action-reaction
> > law, which happens to be the physical basis for momentum conservation.
>
> > Further Rahn misapplies conservation of total energy of the
Hamiltonian
> > formulation. Since I have not discussed these errors with Rahn, I will
> > withhold further comment.
>
> I believe he said that he was working to correct that minor glitch , is
> that not good enough for he who criticises yet made no attempt to do the
> work himself ?
I have an advanced education in physics and thirty years of professional
experience. This background gives me the means to shred the lay work of
Ken Rahn. So I advise you to cease and desist from giving me cause to do
what I prefer not to do to a gentleman and scholar of a different school.
<snip by HB>
> > > From what I've read about eye-witness testimony I would of thought
tha=
t
> > > was the last thing a person would want use to undergird any point he
w=
as
> > > trying to make due to it being notoriously unreliable . Look Herbert
e=
very
> > > eye-witness testimony has parts in it that are not born out by the
sol=
id
> > > physical evidence . I don't think any closure will come to this case
a=
s
> > > long a people use the evidence they want to back engineer a
predisposs=
ed
> > > conclusion .
>
> > You are slitting your own throat. Eye witness testimony is all we have
t=
o
> > do***ent six of the seven wounds attributed to CE 399. A surgeons
knife
> > destroyed the small roundish hole in President Kennedy's neck, the 15
mm=
> > elliptical wound on Governor Connally's back, the large chest wound,
bot=
h
> > linear wounds of the wrist and most im****tantly the thigh wound that
> > re****tedly stopped CE 399.
>
> > Now are you ready to throw the SBT in the garbage heap with the
> > nonphysical eye- witeness testimony?
>
> "You are slitting your own throat. Eye witness testimony is all we have"
>
> Then I'm afraid Herbert you have nothing . Eye-witness testimony being
the=
> greaest cause of mis-carriage of justice in the United States today ,
I'm
> not willing to rest any case on that .
Interested readers may like to see how cdddraftsman takes text out of
context to pretend that the issue is something else.
Initially, cdddrafsman labeled eye-witness testimony as "notoriously
unreliable." I countered by pointing out that the SBT is overwhelmingly
dependent upon the eye- witness testimonies that do***ented six of the
seven wounds attributed to CE 399. cdddrafstman:
=46rom what I've read about eye-witness testimony I would of thought that
was the last thing a person would want use to undergird any point he was
trying to make due to it being notoriously unreliable . Look Herbert every
eye-witness testimony has parts in it that are not born out by the solid
physical evidence . I don't think any closure will come to this case as
long a people use the evidence they want to back engineer a predispossed
conclusion . End of quotation.
hb:
You are slitting your own throat. Eye witness testimony is all we have to
do***ent six of the seven wounds attributed to CE 399. A surgeons knife
destroyed the small roundish hole in President Kennedy's neck, the 15 mm
elliptical wound on Governor Connally's back, the large chest wound, both
linear wounds of the wrist and most im****tantly the thigh wound that
re****tedly stopped CE 399.
Now are you ready to throw the SBT in the garbage heap with the
nonphysical eye- witeness testimony?
End of quotation
The above quotations show that cddraftsman doubted the accuracy of
eyewitnesses while I reminded him of the paramount im****tance of
eyewitnesses to the SBT.
This background provides a basis to evaluate the reply by cdddrafsman
to the one sentence that he took out of context.
Now are you ready to throw the SBT in the garbage heap with the
nonphysical eye-witeness testimony ?
TL :
No I'm not and I don't think anyone serious about solving this case
is
either :
When removed from context, the single sentence gives the incorrect
impression of disputing the value of eyewitnesses and the reply by TL
affirms the value of eyewitnesses.
<snip by HB>
> > > You criticise the all the angles are wrong ad nauseum infinito , yet
y=
our
> > > expecting us to believe that it doesn't imply conspiracy by it's
very =
tone
> > > and nature ? Very interesting . Which is the second criticism I have
.=
No
> > > were do you state what all this mumbo jumbo leads us to . IOW in one
> > > sentence or less What The Hell are you talking about ? Please state
it=
so
> > > us that don't have the moniker of 'premadona scientist' (*) can
>
> I see you were wise enough to leave the field before answering my last
> Q .
If you do not know "what the hell" I am talking about then please explain
your motivation for criticism? Without an adequate explanation for this
puzzling behavior, readers may get the impression the Tom Lowry does not
even understand the WC or HSCA explanations of the shootings and merely
reads the conclusions of the highlighted list.
On a personal note, I wonder whether you have described the technical
discussions of the WC or the HSCA as "mumbo jumbo?"
Herbert
|
