Spingali

I usually don’t waste time in the stagnant and smelly primordial
ooze of the swampland, but will make an exception in this
instance. JamNut took the liberty of taking part of my Smit-
challenge post to the swamp. Conspicuous by its absence is my
challenge to Smit to show that JonBenet’s wrists were bound. The
photos reveals the “ties that did not bind†so clearly that not
even JamNut would try to spin away from this evidence. However,
she did make a rather pathetic attempt in regard to my other
offer to Smit regarding the cord around the neck. JamNut,
suffering from the “mirror syndromeâ€, titled the swamp thread,
"Idiotic BORG posts"

Part of my post at FFJ carried to the swamp:

"Mr. Smit, I will pay you another $10,000 if you can show from
the recorded and\or stored evidence that the diameter of the cord
around the neck can be reduced by pulling the handle, thereby
“killing her. “ Death by forceful circumferential strangulation
via the handle pull is what you meant, isn’t it?"

JAMNUT: “One of the best. A BORG is challenging Lou Smit - -
share case evidence with me or I won't believe the obvious!!!!â€

Smit makes a claim that X is true. I challenge Smit to show
evidence validating the claim. JamNut then spins it (lies) to
reset my position to evade my request for evidence supporting his
claim. She twists it into the notion that I asked Lou to “share
case evidence.â€

Get this: I call Smit, Looney Louie, and JamNut has me asking
him to “share case evidence?†This is almost as funny as the
“slick cord†that JamNut thinks the “intruder†bought.

Let’s try again. Come on, JamNut, follow the bouncing ball.
Clearly, what I’m asking Smit is to produce evidence to support
his claim that “the diameter of the cord around the neck can be
reduced by pulling the handle,...Is this simple request beyond
your capacity to comprehend? If not, the “share case evidence†BS
is a deliberate misrepresentation in an effort to evade the issue
and facts, right? SOP for the RST.

“...or I won’t believe the obvious!!!!â€

As you can see, in JamNut’s “mindâ€, obvious and evidence are
synonyms for “Lou Smit said.†Translation: “I have no evidence
for what I say is true. I don’t need it. My declaration as
obvious creates my preferred reality, hence, you “ought†to
believe me because of my omnipotence.†I find it scarily amazing
that a full grown adult has no idea that just declaring something
to be true does not make it so.

JAMNUT: “You have to wonder what makes this loon think Lou Smit
is going to take him up on that offer. Oh yeah, he's going to
take the garrote out of storage and run out to prove to some BORG
that a slip know allows a cord to be tightened....
Just insane.â€

This area of spin is designed to let Lou off the hook by another
evasion of what I stated. JamNut, once again, follow the bouncing
ball. Aside from your ignoring my disproof of a garrote at the
crime scene, observe if you will, the terminology, “recorded
and\or stored evidence.†Do you see anything in my post that
demands the original evidence? What does “recorded†mean? Since I
used the terminology, recorded and\or stored evidence, recorded
must be something different from stored, right? So the “escapeâ€
here is to pretend that I demand the actual evidence when no such
thing is expressed or implied. “Obvious†evasion. Replication by
reference to the autopsy report and photos will suffice quite
well. What’s your next excuse via evasion and distortion?

After taking part of my post, posting it at the swamp, then
pretending to challenge via distortion, misrepresentations and
evasion, upon approaching the crux of the challenge, there was no
attempt to disprove by arguments at all. In fact, I have yet to
see a single evidentiary argument come out of the swamp. My
arguments were not addressed. They were simply dismissed
by regurgitating the same old false declaration as if declaration
itself suffice for “proof.†Hell bent on showing the
extensiveness of her ignorance, JamNut inserts “..prove to some
BORG that a slip know (sic) allows a cord to be tightened....

“allows a cord to be tightened.... “ ? Tightened around what?
That is the question and issue. How? What are the physics
involved?. What if the slip knot is tightened around the cord
itself? What happens then? Over and over again, the dumb RST
keep babbling about a slipknot as if it is proof of their claims.
It is precisely the slipknot that refutes the claims. A slip knot
is a negative in this situation. I know it’s beyond RST
comprehension, but I will explain this again for the umpteenth
time.

The cord is routed around the neck, then routed around itself to
create the loop around the neck. It is then routed around itself
in a slipknot construction. This allows the knot to slip down and
compress the cord going around the neck. With material of flat
soft nylon, when pulled tightly as was done in this instance, the
slipknot is precisely what prevents slip to change the size of
the loop around the neck. It is the slipknot that compresses the
cord to create flanges and end all further movement to reduce
loop size. Ergo, the fixed diameter is set. These fools rattle on
and on about a slipknot and call it proof of a cord action that
it actually prevents.

In my book, the “horror spin†is the worst of all. Have you ever
seen a photo of JonBenet and the cord around her neck immediately
after it was tied? Of course not. One of the biggest propaganda
props the RST has used for spin is that gruesome closeup of the
cord embedded in JonBenet’s neck. This is an autopsy photo taken
many hours after her death and when the body was in extensive
bloat. The lie that goes with it is that this embedding was
caused by an intruder viciously and murderously pulling on the
handle of the “garrote.†This is the BIG LIE that I have been
challenging for over six years and challenging now.

Even if a proper noose had been made with a small fixed loop to
run the cord through and allow free movement of said cord, it
still would not have created circumferential pressure and an
encircling furrow. What this type of free moving noose would have
done was move away during the process of post mortem bloat. The
ONLY way the cord could have been embedded all the way around the
neck is because the noose was locked in diameter and could not
move away during the process of post mortem swelling. This is not
wild speculation, or guesswork. It is ADDITIONAL, irrefutable
evidence that the claim that the handle was pulled causing the
circumferential embedding is nothing but ONE LARGE AND OFT
REPEATED LIE.

The framework evidence is not only abundant, but about as
elementary as kindergarten. Evidence per se is not and has never
been the problem. The problem was and is EVASION OF THE EVIDENCE.
Look at the photos of the cord on, then removed from ,JonBenet.
At a glance, it is picture perfect clear that JonBenet’s wrists
were never bound. Yet, John says, “tied tightly“ and the media
runs with the lie. Do you know of single news or tv media outlet
that ever mentions the truth, i.e., this evidence than JonBenet’s
wrists were not bound? Nearly ten years after the tragic event,
this evasion of evidence and subsequent nonsense theories still
abound. Speaking of nonsense, back to the RST and posts in focus.

Just when I think they couldn’t get any dumber, they prove me
wrong by walking right into what they have gone out of their way
to deny and evade.

3. "RE: Easy money....."
In response to message #1

>Perhaps the poster will volunteer to him/herself to be part
>of the experiment, using the same type of cord.

JAMNUT: “I have some of the cord. The poster is welcome to come
here to conduct experiments on himself! I will supply the cord.â€

INVITATION ACCEPTED! Thank you, thank you, thank you. However,
JamNut and the rest of the RST, I do not propose to finance your
folly, so here’s the deal. We both put up $10,000 with the non
prevailing party donating the $10,000 to a legitimate children’s
charity and paying the expenses of the prevailing party. This
includes all travel and lodging costs, video equipment,
videographer, photo and print record, whatever.

JamNut, it’s your place and you can pick the time as well. Also,
by all means, you may furnish the cord. Is it that “slick cordâ€
like the “intruder†purchased? :}

“ A deep ligature furrow encircles the entire neck.†(Autopsy
report)

First, JamNut, do understand English? Do you have a dictionary?
Do you understand that “encircles†means all the way around as in
deep furrow all the way around? There ain’t gonna be any spinnin’
on this proposition.

In front of a video camera and witnesses, you put the cord or
rope around my neck. Tie it, loop it, whatever floats your boat.
Tie a handle on the end and pull. If you can create
circumferential pressure and a furrow that encircles my entire
neck, by pulling the handle, you win. It not, your $10,000 goes
to charity and I announce the natural laws of elementary physics
have not been repealed. Do we have a deal? (Since I don’t trust
you AT ALL, the money (mine and yours) must be put in an escrow
account before we proceed. Agree?)

As for Mr. Smit, since in your convoluted spin, you think Lou
would have to get into the evidence room, let’s give Lou an
alternative. Fair enough?

Smit: "The stun gun that we came up with is this one and it’s the
Air Taser stun gun. When the stun gun is energized you see a
light blue mark and if you look closely at the blow-up you'll see
a light blue mark extending from one of the marks to the other on
the back of JonBenét."

According to Mr. Smit, the “light blue mark†is evidence of a
stun gun, hence, evidence of an intruder. I would love to see
this evidence so much that I’m going to up the offer to $50,000
for a Taser, or any other brand name stun gun that Lou can come
up with that leaves a blue mark on skin. A water pistol filled
with ink is not an acceptable substitute.

JamNut, do you think Mr. Smit will go for this offer. Care to try
to spin THIS challenge? Be my guest.

P.S. Those aware of the evidence and the fact that PHYSICS NEVER
LIE know that I am not risking one red cent. Of course, my offer
is sincere and I invite Smit, JamNut and all the RST to try to
prove otherwise. Bring it on.

 

Well Delmar, you are not one to mince words. Your offer is a solid one. Let's see if the one who opened this door has the confidence to walk though it, or if they prefer to just keep shooting spitballs from the peanut gallery.

Good work my friend

Little

 

Great post, Delmar. I wish you all the best with this. I'm glad you included the Air Taser stun gun especially for Lou Smit.

I really do want to see both demonstrations.
Elle

 

Easy Writer

“…stagnant and smelly primordial
ooze of the swampland,….†hahahahaha!

I challenge anyone to come up a more descriptive term for that awful place. LOL. Easy Writer strikes again!

:leaf:

 

"According to Mr. Smit, the "light blue mark" is evidence of a
stun gun, hence, evidence of an intruder. I would love to see
this evidence so much that I'm going to up the offer to $50,000
for a Taser, or any other brand name stun gun that Lou can come
up with that leaves a blue mark on skin. A water pistol filled
with ink is not an acceptable substitute."

Easiest money you'll ever make! I happen to have one of these little babies!

"Tie a handle on the end and pull. If you can create
circumferential pressure and a furrow that encircles my entire
neck, by pulling the handle, you win."

The way it was tied, all the pressure would be on the front, wouldn't it?

 

The maximum pressure would be exactly 180 degree from the center
of the applied force, with angular graduation of force around the
up to the point of none. In this crime scene, there was no
indication of pull pressure since the cord was TIED with no point
of pulling the handle. The mummy wrapped handle was a staging
prop of a mind that did not have a clue about the materials
and\or convincing construction.

 

The response from the swamp was as expected with one exception:

“Curiouser
unregistered user
07-24-06, 12:11 PM (EST)

14. "RE: Doh"
In response to message #13

there is nothing false or irrational about the borg making
such an argument. what the borg is wondering is why nobody has
seriously looked into such easy money that is legally binding as
an offer. Hell, nobody even looked into whether or not the offer
is legal, binding, serious or anything else. that tells me and
the others watching that nobody is willing to step up to the
plate and look further for such easy money. Nobody is willing to
call his bluff on these offers. All the hard work and claims made
are finally at the stage where they can be proven to do the most
good. Money for JBR, smit or a charity.

What are you afraid of?†(End quote)

Other than the poster thinks I’m bluffing, which I assure you, I
am not, he\she really makes some good points; especially, “What
are you afraid of.â€

The same question applies to six years and not a single RST
member accepting my invitation to meet me online and answer
questions about the alleged evidence of an alleged intruder. Make
no mistake about it, all the yada, yada, yada, name calling and
ad hominem evasion does nothing to hide their fear. It just
emphasizes it.

One of my elementary school teachers told me that all things are
made up of something called “matterâ€, and everything that happens
is caused by natural law. She went on to explain the law of
gravity, energy is matter changing form, and that sort of thing.
All my experiences and thought have validated her declarations
without exceptions. So, when I bet a penny, thousands of dollars,
whatever, on natural law, it is really no gamble at all. Drawing
to an inside straight is a gamble. Betting that circumferential
pressure cannot happen with an angular force is not gamble. It’s
a natural law certainty.

Example: If you were holding a ten pound lead ball in your hand,
then released it, in earth’s gravity, would it fall up, or fall
down? Is there any doubt? Would you be willing to put up money to
back your conclusion? Would you agree to video, audio, and an
assortments of measurements to demonstrate the effect of dropping
a lead ball? If you say the lead ball would fall down instead of
up, do you know anybody that would bet you are wrong? They might
say it, but would they put up substantial material value, and or,
their life to try to refute your contention?

This is basically the natural law situation with JamNut and the
RST, except they refuse to look at the evidence. After over six
years of frustrating lies and evasion by LE and the media, the
dodging of questions and fact, I decided to see if a substantial
monetary incentive would lure them out of hiding and induce them
to try to back their claims with evidence according to natural
law. The offer is quite sincere, and quite legal. Since they have
been cowards afraid to face the truth for all these years, it is
no surprise to find them chattering like chipmunks and spewing
out excuses to try to hide their fear. Whistling past the
graveyard is what my Momma used to call it.

The money offer and a human object of demonstration may seem a
bit melodramatic, but when dishonest dunces can’t see (read,
won’t see) wide open and irrefutable natural law evidence,
drastic measures are called for to get focus on the facts where
it belongs. Focus upon the facts is precisely what has been
missing from the outset. This evasion is evidenced in literally
every area of the crime scene and alleged investigation.

Setting aside the melodrama of a human subject, let’s take a look
at the situation with an inanimate object. Since a feather won’t
tip the scales much, we need something of a bit more weight.
Select a log, rolled up rug, whatever that forms a circle and
weighs say 10 to 20 pounds. Tie or loop a cord around the object
anyway that suits your fancy and attach a handle to the cord for
pulling or lifting. The cord around JonBenet’s neck was a non
slip set up; which is why pulling the handle was fruitless as
well as the reason for post mortem embedding via bloat. However,
if you want to create an adjustable noose, be my guest. It won’t
change the fact that circumferential pressure cannot be done with
angular force. If the embedding is 360, then the embedding
pressure had to be 360. It’s that simple.

Observe, that no matter how tight you tie it, when you lift or
pull by the handle, (in any direction) the loop is pulled away
from that side of the object. This is easily visible to the naked
eye, but can be measured with high tech, digital readout pressure
sensors placed at quarter inch interval all the way around the
object. No matter what you try, there will be no circumferential
pressure. This natural law demonstration is precisely what the
RST says isn’t true. (You might want to give them a try on that
lead ball dropping thing. I believe they will go for it.

 

I wouldn't spit in their faces if their mustaches caught fire!

 

Anybody that's ever been walking a dog when a rabbit runs by should be able to get what EasyWriter is saying. When you hold the dog back, the front of his collar is choking him, but the back of his collar comes away from his neck.

Not that I want to keep you from getting this easy money for a nice charity, sir!

 

Thanks for the illustration, wombat. It is exactly that simple. If the RST can't grasp this, would you say they are bit "mentally challenged?"

 

jamesonadmin
Member since 5-8-02
07-25-06, 12:48 PM (EST)
Click to EMail jameson Click to view user profileClick to add
this user to your buddy list
26. "RE: Idiotic BORG posts"
In response to message #0

(Wombat): The quote: "Anybody that's ever been walking a dog when
a rabbit runs by should be able to get what EasyWriter is saying.
When you hold the dog back, the front of his collar is choking
him, but the back of his collar comes away from his neck."

JamNut:†My reply: Has the BORG ever heard of a "choke chain"?
Pull on that leash and the collar gets smaller, smaller, smaller."
It is NOT like a regular collar or hangman's noose.â€

“My Reply†: Did you ever see anyone so hellbent on showing her
ignorance?

Yes, I have used a choke chain. I have also used a lasso, catch
snare, single throw horse hitch, a hangman’s noose and other
adjustable loop types. They all get “smaller, smaller, smaller,
so what? NOT A SINGLE ONE OF THEM CAN POSSIBLY EXERT
CIRCUMFERENTIAL PRESSURE. Selective memory, again, JamNut? Did
you forget circumferential is the issue? Furthermore, they are
made in advance of application and do not entwine the hair of the
animal. As stated before, but conveniently ignored, there was
no adjustable noose at the crime scene; and even if there had
been, circumferential embedding is IMPOSSIBLE WITH ANGULAR FORCE.

For your edification (if possible) angular force applied is
anything less than 360 degree. ANY force less than 360 degrees
cannot and does not create 360 degree pressure and 360 embedding.
Ergo, “A deep ligature furrow encircles the entire neck.†cannot
possibly be the effect of any action of detracting force such as
loop pulled by an external handle. It’s natural law: Reality 101.
Get used to it.

 

Um, I didn't give permission for anybody to copy my post anywhere. But whatever, I'm not answering that.

I have more to say about circumferential pressure, but it has to wait until tonight when nobody's buggin' me. I won't even charge my normal consulting fee$$$.

Later.

 

"Anybody that's ever been walking a dog when a rabbit runs by should be able to get what EasyWriter is saying. When you hold the dog back, the front of his collar is choking him, but the back of his collar comes away from his neck."

Someone even said this was like a dog leash. (Can't remember who, though.)

 

Forensic Testimony (with thanks to Noodles and Whisper)

All forces can be expressed as vectors (vestors are lines with direction, like arrows), and in newtonian physics they act in the x-y-z "direction". For symplicity, we are going to say that the "garrote" existed in a plane, and had only the x and y coordinates. (your basic graph has an x direction, along the bottom, and a y direction, pointing "up" on the page.)

In newtonian physics, all actions have an equal and opposite reaction (Newton's 3rd law). You pull something, it comes towards you, unless something is resisting this force. When something resists, the force goes into the body and the stresses are distributed into it. The stresses are distributed based on the "mechanics of deformable bodies", i.e., the nature and size of the object.

In newtonian physics, friction is described as the normal force times a coefficient, the coefficient being based on "roughness" or "stickiness". (We went into this before when we were trying to figure out why it's harder to drag a dead body than a live one.) Roughness comes from the microscopic interlock of the materials - like an emery board on your fingernails. Stickiness comes from static electricity on a molecular level.

A dog's leash is attached to his collar, whether fixed or choke chain. When it is pulled, the leash experienced a force in the y direction that travels equally through both sides of the round collar to the contact point in the front of the dog's neck. The force is then exerted on the dog through the contact point, which is the length of the part of the collar that touches the dog. Depending on how bad the dog is, the force either causes him to jerk back, or rise up, or just stand there and be good. The force you extert on his neck travels down to his feet and is resisted by the friction between his paw pads and the ground.

For the force to get from your hand to the neck, it travels in tension through both sides of the collar. Same thing if it is a sliding choke collar. To get the collar to actually "choke" the force has to travel in all one direction around the neck, creating a circumferential pressure.

If you jerk sideways on the leash, the collar will slide depending on how rough his fur is. BobC's Noodles, who we just met, would have his collar slide more than my dog Whisper the malamute, who has much more fur than a dog ought to have. In this case the force of the pulling is distributed to the dog's neck through the fur's friction.

If you stand there and decide to use your doggie as a guinea pig, and pull a choke chain directly back from his neck, it will not tighten. The force is coming back directly in the y direction, and for it to tighten there has to be an x component. The x component that develops is resisted by the friction of the chain upon itself. To get it to even tighten a little you have to move your hand in the lateral, or x direction in this case, perpendicular to the restraining force. But then it will slide, more on Noodles than on Whisper, resisted by friction.

The way to get an x component is to pull perpendicular from the y direction which is directly back from the dog in such a way as to have the x component resisted. The way to do this is to have two opposite free ends, such as in a true "garrote". (Please don't do this to your dog.)

This will create the circumferential pressure. This cannot be created by pulling in one direction (directly back from the dog's head) because the sum of the forces have only a y component. Lines exist in one only one dimension, circles by definition exist in the x and y dimensions.

One last way to illustrate this physics example - put on a belt. To tighten it, you have to pull it sideways through the buckle, or pull the buckle down on it.

Conclusion. EasyWriter documented his position that the knot didn't slide, and there was only one cord coming off of the garrote. Therefore there was no circumferential force in that poor child's neck from the cord. Therefore she wasn't choked by the cord tightening.

 

:clap: :clap: :clap:

Excellent post, Wombat, and a terrific physics lesson!

Unfortunately, the cretins at the Swamp won't be able to understand anything you said since they can't grasp simple logic much less understand Newtonian physics. I'm afraid your x and y vectors will just be more fodder for Jeff Johnson's alpha-beta-numeral soup on acid. Susan Bennett will say, "Silly BORG, the Ramsey didn't have any x and y in their house, and Evening2 will make the case that since Santa McReynold's wife used x and y in her writings, Santa was the killer.

But who cares? You and EW have done an excellent job of explaining the so-called "garrote."

 

Wombat, I thought your low tech example about a dog pulling the
collar was excellent. It’s something that many are familiar with
and can extrapolate to better understand the crime scene. Your
high tech explanation of the principle was excellent as well.
Alas, I’m afraid that where JamNut is concerned, your efforts are
in vain. I am reminded of a story I heard long ago.

The vocalist often interrupted and complained about the playing
of her accompanying pianist. Finally, in exasperation, he arose
from his bench and said: “Lady, you can’t sing on the white keys.
You can’t sing on the black keys, and I can’t play on the cracks.
I quit.â€

I’m bettin’ JamNut thinks that polar conversion has something to
do with proselytizing missionaries at the North Pole.

 

Sad to say, there are a lot of truly stupid people in this world, and jameson and her jambots are perfect examples of truly stupid people.

The trouble is, stupid people don't always know they are stupid. Add stupid to brassy, pushy, ignorant, and arrogant, and you may as well be talking to the man in the moon.

 

Thanks. I just had to go on the record. It is true that physics never lie, but people do.

 

What a group! I wouldn't give you two cents for the lot!

 

:rolling: :rolling: :rolling: :rolling: :rolling: :rolling: :rolling: :rolling:


Thanks, I really needed that