Lars Hansson returns.....

The ones that didn't get away

Moderators: ryguy, chrLz, Zep Tepi

Re: Lars Hansson returns.....

Postby ryguy » Wed Dec 22, 2010 12:39 pm

I don't know or care about this particular case because I don't believe there was any conspiracy in the JFK case (except, as in 9-11, the cover-up by intel agencies of any evidence they fumbled in their responsibilities to predict the threat) - but just wanted to note that in the video, just prior to his head snapping back the video camera itself moved a bit so that everything moved forward slightly. You'll notice the entire car and all occupants move forward simultaneously.

...and that red mist looks a bit cheesy.

-Ry
---
"Only a fool of a scientist would dismiss the evidence and reports in front of him and substitute his own beliefs in their place." - Paul Kurtz

The RU Blog
Top Secret Writers
User avatar
ryguy
1 of the RU3
 
Posts: 4920
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2006 3:49 am
Location: Another Dimension


Re: Lars Hansson returns.....

Postby chrLz » Wed Dec 22, 2010 1:09 pm

ryguy wrote:I don't know or care about this particular case because I don't believe there was any conspiracy in the JFK case (except, as in 9-11, the cover-up by intel agencies of any evidence they fumbled in their responsibilities to predict the threat) - but just wanted to note that in the video, just prior to his head snapping back the video camera itself moved a bit so that everything moved forward slightly. You'll notice the entire car and all occupants move forward simultaneously.

...and that red mist looks a bit cheesy.

-Ry


Glad it's not just me.. I confess to having little interest in the whole JFK thing, but I glanced at a few of the videos and (tiny, short) gifs on this thread, and was amazed at the armchair analysis being applied... geez... :?

Where is the REAL analysis, where *everything* is properly considered, including the camera movement issue above, along with blurring (focus-/motion-/etc), cropping/magnification, interlacing distortions, video post-proc and conversion issues... Not once have I seen any mention of actual timings and real measurements with full discussion on how they were derived along with all of the error sources (and the resulting error range)...

I'll happily admit I'm no video expert (so don't ask me to do it!), but I do know the basics and the sort of things that can screw up such 'analyses'. Clearly those factors are not being addressed here, and discerning readers should be very wary of (high-) jumping to any of the 'conclusions' being drawn...
"To wear the mantle of Galileo, it is not enough that you be persecuted by an unkind establishment. You must also be right." - Robert L. Park (..almost)
User avatar
chrLz
Moderator
 
Posts: 258
Joined: Tue Nov 09, 2010 9:47 am

Re: Lars Hansson returns.....

Postby Access Denied » Wed Dec 22, 2010 5:56 pm

chrLz wrote:Where is the REAL analysis, where *everything* is properly considered, including the camera movement issue above, along with blurring (focus-/motion-/etc), cropping/magnification, interlacing distortions, video post-proc and conversion issues... Not once have I seen any mention of actual timings and real measurements with full discussion on how they were derived along with all of the error sources (and the resulting error range)...

I'm glad you asked, it was “hidden” at the link I posted earlier…

Access Denied wrote:Can you see the quick forward snap?
http://karws.gso.uri.edu/JFK/issues_and ... _snap.html

Click on "Physics of Head Shot" and you get this…

Physics and the frontal hit that never was
http://karws.gso.uri.edu/JFK/Scientific ... _shot.html

From 1994 through 1997 I spent a lot of time trying to quantitatively understand JFK's double response to the fatal head shot, the original topic that drew me into the JFK assassination. By "double response," I mean the quick forward snap (that is now conveniently ignored by most writers) and the longer, slower rearward lurch, the only movement seen when the Zapruder film is viewed at full speed. My goal was to see which of these movements was compatible with the Mannlicher-Carcano bullet that hit the rear of JFK's head, exited in pieces from the front right side, and then went on to hit the windshield and possibly also fly over the top and hit James Tague or the curb near him.

I was struck by the fact that this problem could be approached, at least in principle, by combining the basic physics of colliding bodies with some principles of wound ballistics. I was also surprised that no one seemed to have done this either qualitatively or quantitatively. I began simply, with the forward snap, and learned quickly that its speed was fully compatible with the Carcano bullet and reasonable exit velocities. I then combined the rearward motion, the real goal of the work, with the forward snap and learned that the former was also compatible with the known hit. In the process, I generated seven simulations, each of increasing complexity, separately for translational (linear) and rotational (angular) motions, for 14 simulations in all. I ended by adding an eighth simulation for angular motion and a treatment of some of the major errors that could render some of my conclusions suspect.

Dig through it and you come to this…

The unification of physical evidence provided by these calculations

The physical evidence in the JFK case now speaks with one voice. It provides an extremely strong framework inside which the assassination must be interpreted. Here is its essence.

The movements

  • The quick forward snap came from a shot from the rear.
  • The initial rapid rearward lurch also came from a shot from the rear.
  • Neither the forward snap nor the bulk of the lurch could have come from a frontal shot.
  • The forward-moving diffuse cloud and large fragments also came from that shot from the rear.
  • Thus the Zapruder film provides no positive evidence for a second shooter, and all but disallows one. One bullet from the rear created all the motions.
The fragments

  • One bullet also explains all the fragments from the head shot (in head, on rear carpet, and in front seat).
  • That bullet differed chemically from the bullet of the body shot (Connally's wrist; Parkland stretcher).
  • The two large fragments from the head shot came from Oswald's rifle to the exclusion of all other rifles.
  • The stretcher bullet (CE 399) also came from Oswald's rifle to the exclusion of all other rifles.
  • Thus every fragment and every motion came solely from two bullets from Oswald's rifle.
The rifle

  • Oswald owned and possessed that rifle at the time of the assassination.
  • He was earlier photographed holding the same rifle.
  • His fingerprints were found on the rifle and the shipping cartons that were used as a gun rest.
  • No one else has been linked to the rifle or the shooting in any physical way.
The wounds

  • There were two sets of wounds in Kennedy's body and one set in Connally.
  • No bullet was found in either man's body.
  • Only two bullets were found externally, both shot from Oswald's rifle at the rear.
  • Only two chemical compositions of the fragments were found, which grouped with the two bullets.
  • Thus the two bullets explain all the wounds to both men, and indicate that they had been properly aligned for a double-body hit.
The link to Oswald

  • Both the bullets found had come from Oswald's rifle.
  • Oswald was in the building at the time (by his own admission to a reporter, as documented in The Men Who Killed Kennedy, Reel 4, "The Patsy").
  • Empty shells from his rifle were found at the window through which the rifle was shot.
  • Oswald left the building abruptly after the shooting, returned to his rooming house, got his pistol, and shortly thereafter used it to kill Officer J. D. Tippit in cold blood.
  • He fled the scene, hid in the Texas Theater, and tried to kill again as he was being arrested.
All this evidence sums up to two bullets from Oswald's rifle explaining everything. Two questions remain, whether he was the shooter and whether he had help. The first can only be answered probabilistically, for there is no direct hard evidence that he was the shooter. But the tight web of circumstantial evidence provides a probability of >99%, and probably more like 99.9%. It is not certain, however, and will probably never be certain. The second question, concerning help, has been debated for nearly 40 years. It has been investigated endlessly, without yielding anything definitive. Right now we can say that the shooter did not need help and appears not to have received any. Three shots. One missed everything, one hit the back instead of the head, and the last came within an inch or so of missing the head. But they did the job, and then the guy tried to run away.

I would be interested in hearing what you think of this fairly imposing (on any alternative “theories”) piece of work.

7forever, please address each of the substantive points raised above in your next post. Do not repost the same argument from incredulity and material you've already posted several times now again.
Men go and come but Earth abides.
User avatar
Access Denied
1 of the RU3
 
Posts: 2740
Joined: Tue Jan 09, 2007 7:32 am
Location: [redacted]

Re: Lars Hansson returns.....

Postby chrLz » Thu Dec 23, 2010 11:06 am

Access Denied wrote:
chrLz wrote:Where is the REAL analysis...

I'm glad you asked, it was “hidden” at the link I posted earlier…


Ah, there you go - just goes to show what a shallow, disinterested, sniping-type poster I am... :D :D :lol:

I would be interested in hearing what you think of this fairly imposing (on any alternative “theories”) piece of work.

Well, what with holidays and all, I have only had a quick browse over a few of those pages, but.. I see what appears to be... the application of.. SCIENCE. Woohoo!

I'm not by any means suggesting I endorse or fully accredit the approach and/or conclusions found there, indeed as i said earlier, I happily admit to not being the sort of video expert required to be on a peer review panel - however, I see a lot of effort to look into the topic, and that's always a good sign... I may revisit it in the new year and see what holes I can pick in it...

7forever, please address each of the substantive points raised above in your next post. Do not repost the same argument from incredulity and material you've already posted several times now again.

I agree - we could use some sort of indication from 7forever that s/he is sufficiently informed on the topics (forensic video analysis, photogrammetry, ballistics, etc) to make these claims. For example, may I quote from just one of the tables from that analysis (apologies for the lousy formatting, but I think the point is made..):
Code: Select all
Variable   Symbol   Default value   Range of values
Mass of bullet   mbullet   161 gr   156–166 gr
Entrance velocity of bullet   vbullet   1800 ft s-1   1750–1850 ft s-1
Exit velocity of bullet   vbulletafter   200 ft s-1   0–400 ft s-1
Angle of bullet above horizontal   Θ   12°   7°–17°
Mass of head   mhead   7 lb   4–10 lb
Mass of upper torso   mbody   85 lb   65–105 lb
Vertical length of upper torso   L   3 ft   None—on both sides of equation
Mass of diffuse cloud of brain matter   mcloud   0.3 lb   0.1–0.8 lb
Exit speed of cloud of brain matter   vcloud   300 ft s-1   0–600 ft s-1
Potential energy created by bullet's breaking and transiting skull   PE   300 ft-lb   0–600 ft-lb
Lever arm of rotation of head about top of neck   Rhead   4.5 in   3.5–5.5 in
Lever arm of bullet with respect to top of neck   Rbullet   5.75 in   4.75–6.75 in
Mass of large fragment 1   mfrag1   0.027 lb   0.022–0.032 lb
Exit velocity of large fragment 1   vfrag1   500 ft s-1   250–750 ft s-1
Upward angle of large fragment 1   Θfrag1   40°   20°–60°
Mass of large fragments 2,3   mfrags23   0.01 lb   0.005–0.015 lb
Exit velocity of large fragments 2,3   vfrags23   500 ft s-1   250–750 ft s-1
Upward angle of large fragments 2,3   Θfrags23   70°   50°–90°
Final speed of forward snap of head   vsnap   Calculated   Calculated
Final speed of rearward mechanical recoil (lurch) of head and upper torso   vbodyafter, vlurch   Calculated   Calculated
Half-angle of conical cloud of brain matter   Θcl    70°   20°–120°
3-D term for speed of cloud (to reduce mean X-velocity)   fxcl   Calculated   Calculated
3-D terms for kinetic energy of large fragment 1 (to add Y, Z components of KE)   fkefrag1   1.25   1.0–1.5
3-D term for kinetic energy of large fragments 2,3 (to add Y, Z components of KE)   fkefrags23   1.25   1.0–1.5
3-D term for kinetic energy of lurching body (to add Y, Z components of KE)   fkebody   1.2   1.0–1.4
Distance of bullet's transit through head   dtransit   4 in   0–8 in
Distance of forward snap of head   dsnap   2.2 in   1.6–2.8 in
Distance moved by large fragments in Z313   dfrags   6 ft   2–10 ft
Time delay to begin snap after Z312 closes   tdelay   0.002 s   0.000–0.007 s
Time duration of forward snap within 312,313   tsnap   Calculated   Calculated
Time for bullet to transit the head   ttransit   Calculated   Calculated
Time of lurch within open period of Z313   tlurch   Calculated   Calculated
Factor for improved moment of inertia of body   fI   1.11   1.06–1.16

And that's just about the energy calculations - hasn't even touched upon the issues I mentioned above..
:D
Makes a 4-frame gif look a little er.. 'shallow'.., no?

7forever, would you like to discuss those figures and how they are (or are not) relevant?

Actually, you really need to go back to the earlier request - how, precisely, have you taken into account camera/film movement?
"To wear the mantle of Galileo, it is not enough that you be persecuted by an unkind establishment. You must also be right." - Robert L. Park (..almost)
User avatar
chrLz
Moderator
 
Posts: 258
Joined: Tue Nov 09, 2010 9:47 am

Re: Lars Hansson returns.....

Postby Access Denied » Fri Dec 24, 2010 6:38 am

chrLz wrote:Ah, there you go - just goes to show what a shallow, disinterested, sniping-type poster I am... :D :D :lol:

Not at all, it was a good point. Like I said, I’m glad you asked, even if it shows that you can’t count on everyone to click on links… that or cognitive dissonance may cause some to pretend they didn’t. ;)

chrLz wrote:Makes a 4-frame gif look a little er.. 'shallow'.., no?

Interesting choice of words...

ryguy wrote:...and that red mist looks a bit cheesy.

Because it might look a little “deeper”...

7forever wrote:The zapruder film was made into a cartoon of the driver killing Kennedy.

And less like a cartoon if it wasn’t an 8 bit (256) color 4 frame (256/4 < colors < 256) GIF. :)

And given this in Don Ecker’s OP…

Decker wrote:…the "the Driver Shot JFK video" is one of the most toxic stories ever…

One also wonders what copy of the film it was made from.

For comparison, here’s a presumably better copy of the “mist” frame that also looks kind of funky but the source is unclear (perhaps to try and avoid a copyright violation)…

http://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z313.jpg

As I understand it, the “enhanced” version made by the Zapruder family from the actual original which is held by NARA is the best copy available…

JFK Assassination Records > Frequently Asked Questions
http://www.archives.gov/research/jfk/faqs.html#film

Where is the Zapruder Film? Can I get a copy of it?

The original Zapruder film is part of the Kennedy Collection and is in the custody of the Motion Picture Sound and Video staff, at the National Archives at College Park. NARA may make a single fair-use copy of the film and sell it to any researcher. However, the copyright for the film is owned by the Sixth Floor Museum in Dallas Texas. If a researcher chooses to publish the film in any way, he or she will need to obtain permission from the copyright holders.

It should be noted that the Zapruder family created an enhanced version of the film that is much clearer than the original film in NARA's custody. At one time, you could rent this film from local video rental outlets. We believe this film is still available for purchase.

It's available on Amazon…

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/630507190X

By the way, the analysis I linked to explains how the measurements were made with great precision from 8 x 10 enlargements of the frames held by Life magazine…

http://karws.gso.uri.edu/JFK/Scientific ... -film.html

The method used (measuring from fixed points on the vehicle) automatically eliminates any camera movement.

At any rate, I find the obsession with the murder of JFK disturbing… like Don said toxic. Same with 9/11… completely desensitized to the real tragedy.
Men go and come but Earth abides.
User avatar
Access Denied
1 of the RU3
 
Posts: 2740
Joined: Tue Jan 09, 2007 7:32 am
Location: [redacted]

Re: Lars Hansson returns.....

Postby goldynheart » Fri Jan 14, 2011 6:18 am

Well, alrighty then. Since somebody was kind enough to start this thread with my name, I figured after all this time y'all might enjoy reading a few thoughts from the horse's ass, er, mouth himself. I've purposely stayed "offline" for about 15 years now for a variety of reasons, as I detailed briefly in a couple radio shows I did awhile back with Don Ecker at Dark Matters Radio. Since then, a number of folks have pointed out this forum to me which has popped up in their searches, so I figured, what the hell? Why not offer my own view of this original matter, the "Driver Did It" Theory, and whatever else you folks might be interested in? As determined as I've been over all these years to remain "outside the fray," a number of events, including Don's show, have persuaded me otherwise, and before I take this show on the road in a fairly big way in the next few months, I hope you might enjoy a low-key discussion with the guy who inadvertenely started it all - or at least most if it.

I guess it's appropriate that this forum title is "Famous Hoaxes," since that was utterly NOT my intent, to be sure, but certainly what it has amounted to, considering that that damn minute-long tape was made more than 20 years ago, and still, according to Don, at least, remains a hot topic of discussion in numerous circles. Rather than repeat myself more than necessary, I would certainly direct you to one of the free copies you can download of my "mea culpa" written back in '91 to try and put the genie back in the bottle. You can find several spots around the web by typing in the title "Ufos, Aliens and Ex-Intelligence Agents - Who's Fooling Whom?" Or just do a google search on my name and add "JFK" or "UFOs."

That said, allow me to summarize briefly my experience in this matter and then I'll be happy to await your questions, brickbats and or encouragement, should I be so lucky... It was and has become a very long story over these two decades, which in itself was a very small part of my overall efforts at the time, but of course, the video saga, thanks pretty much to John Lear and Bill Cooper, took on a huge life of its own. After all the guessing and speculating and second-guessing, tho', the bottom line, made clear to me by Robert Groden, back in 1991, I believe, by providing me access to a very clear version of the Zapruder film, is that no matter how much one might want to believe Greer did it, for so many reasons, the visual evidence is actually VERY clear that his hands never left the wheel -- pure and simple, and almost end of story. Of course, what has plagued me even more over the years is the clear-cut evidence that after the first shot, the man actually DID step on the brakes, totally contrary to procedure, training and simple common sense. So, while it is actually very clear Greer did NOT shoot JFK, I have seriously wondered ever since if he consciously slowed the car enough to permit an easier later shot. What do YOU think?

Far beyond all this, tho', are the many other questions that absolutely should be asked, many of which HAVE been very well answered by a number of the genuinely respectable researcher/investigators over the years. I'd be happy to point you to many of the ?s and their "answers" if you're interested -- but only if you're interested... In closing, I'd like to steer you to a recent article which pretty effectively sums up the "big picture" at this point, IMHO:
http://www.deathandtaxesmag.com/37820/j ... democracy/

The ball is in your court, comrades... Lars
goldynheart
 
Posts: 2
Joined: Thu Dec 23, 2010 5:15 am

Re: Lars Hansson returns.....

Postby Access Denied » Fri Jan 14, 2011 9:40 am

Welcome to the forum Lars!

Too swamped for any “probing” questions at the moment but I think it’s great you were able to come to terms with the monster you “created” and are comfortable with discussing it.

I enjoyed the article you linked to, thanks for sharing it. I agree it doesn’t matter if Oswald actually acted on his own… things arguably went downhill from there regardless.

If anybody has any questions for Lars, now would be the time to ask them. He shouldn’t need an introduction to most of the folks here but in case he does, see Don’s in the first post of this thread.

For example, I think everybody knows my opinion of Bob Lazar (I know him through a mutual friend) but Lars actually got to know him when Lazar was looking to break into the then booming business of Ufology…

Tom
Men go and come but Earth abides.
User avatar
Access Denied
1 of the RU3
 
Posts: 2740
Joined: Tue Jan 09, 2007 7:32 am
Location: [redacted]

Re: Lars Hansson returns.....

Postby ryguy » Fri Jan 14, 2011 2:32 pm

Lars - it really is an honor to have you join the fray and post here. My blog update about your return:

http://www.realityuncovered.net/blog/20 ... n-returns/

....wasn't entirely true until now, except of course in the case of Don's radio show. :-)

Thanks for fully returning to the discussion and I'm very pleased you chose RU to do so!

-Ryan
---
"Only a fool of a scientist would dismiss the evidence and reports in front of him and substitute his own beliefs in their place." - Paul Kurtz

The RU Blog
Top Secret Writers
User avatar
ryguy
1 of the RU3
 
Posts: 4920
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2006 3:49 am
Location: Another Dimension

Re: Lars Hansson returns.....

Postby goldynheart » Fri Jan 14, 2011 6:18 pm

Well, thank you kindly for the reception, and actually I am honored. I've read a number of posts on this thread and several others and I very much respect the intelligence and critical thinking that your posters usually display. I've noticed over the years that John Lear and Bob Lazar's friend, Gene Huff, as well as the extremely outspoken Gerry Patrick Hemmings, among other notable/notorious folks, have made countless posts to several forums, and have always felt I should do something to try and clarify at least some of the discourse.

Don't have much time at the moment, but I would like to clarify just one of those aspects from your most recent post now. I'm a total newbie at this, so it will take me a while to figure out the cut and paste, etc., but Tom just claimed something about Bob Lazar "breaking into the UFO field," or words to that effect. I have never claimed to be a great or close friend of Bob or Gene, as John Lear seems to cling to himself, but I did manage to spend a fair amount of time with them back in 1989-90 and was surprisingly accepted by them both. I certainly have never tried to defend, much less promote Bob, but just offer honest observations of him and his actions I was privy to. That said, I really believe, given all the events that transpired back then, that Bob really had NO desire to become directly involved in the UFO miasma, at least for the first year or so. Not sure what he's like today, but at that time he was extremely reserved and reticent about his experiences and life in general. Huff, on the other hand, was quite loquacious, but, refreshingly, pretty much always in a sincerely informative mode, not to promote him or Bob, but usually to try to counter false or misleading details that seemed to radiate almost immediately after his emergence.

I have to assume most of you are pretty familiar with that scenario, which I think I detailed somewhat in my "book." Basically, I have always felt that Bob was pretty much dragged kicking and screaming into the limelight, ironically enough, due primarily to his ill-fated association with Lear. It bears repeating that both Lazar and I mistakenly entrusted numerous details about our life and work to Lear, who then broadcast them to the world in his own inimitable way. If anyone was into self-promotion at that time, it was definitely Lear and NOT Lazar. Case in point were Lear's phone conversations during that time with Gordon Novel, a number of which were recorded by Lear and provided to me. That situation could almost rate a book all by itself, and I probably still need to be very careful about how I approach this, but suffice to say that Novel was extremely anxious at that time to meet with Lazar, and try to vet him and/or exploit his knowledge of the anti-grav technology Lazar was supposedly privy to. Even Novel expressed great distrust of Lazar's motives at the time, precisely because Lazar was NOT attempting to exploit his claimed experience/knowledge for gain at all. I can still hear Gordon's exact words in my head (shades of Gordon Gekko and Jerry Maguire!) tho' I've not listened to those tapes in nearly two decades. Whatever Bob and Gene have done along these lines with his Tripod website or whatever since then is another story, but I remember that Bob was even overly casual with the laboratory setup provided to him by a Bigelow fellow back then, apparently not that anxious to capitalize on his Area 51 work at all. I remember after things have gone completely south with Lear by 1991 by chance actually standing next to Lazar at a Home Depot in Las Vegas for several minutes, trying to become invisible just so that he would not inadvertently betray my presence in town to Lear and his cronies. Lazar was so much into his own space that he never did recognize me. It has amazed me ever since, given that I was actually standing about three feet away from him the entire time.

Of course, the rest of the content of Novel's tape was incredible, to say the least, particularly back then, and I am probably still skirting legality to say more, but I certainly AM at liberty to describe my phone interactions with him in the aftermath. That story, and any others, are best left for another post. I certainly hope, tho', this one is somewhat useful, if not intriguing -- since that has usually been my strong suit in years past...

Cheers,

Lars

P.S. I am sorely tempted to bring up a number other more current issues/events if you're interested, but certainly want to respect forum protocol. I am happy to discuss any details of the Zapruder film fiasco, of course, along with Lear, Gritz, Cooper, et al. I do hope, tho', that you might want to pursue more current matters, since, of course we all know too well that the more things change, the more they stay the same... Dare I say, Jared Loughner? and who his most recent "friends" might be??
goldynheart
 
Posts: 2
Joined: Thu Dec 23, 2010 5:15 am

Re: Lars Hansson returns.....

Postby Access Denied » Sat Jan 15, 2011 10:14 am

Fantastic post Lars. I don’t know if I would use the word reticent to describe Bob but I think I understand what you’re trying to say. Anyway, I’m pretty sure Ryan would be interested in hearing anything you have to share about Gordon. This thread may be a good a place to start…

Gordon Novel's RAM

Go ahead and start a new thread about Loughner in the Politics section of the forum if you would like.


P.S. Check out [Tutorial] How to use the Quote Button? and click on “Using the Quote Button” for a short demo.
Men go and come but Earth abides.
User avatar
Access Denied
1 of the RU3
 
Posts: 2740
Joined: Tue Jan 09, 2007 7:32 am
Location: [redacted]

Previous

Google

Return to Famous Hoaxes

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests