Did secret service accidentally fire fatal shot to JFK's head


PDA






jeil
April 5, 2006, 01:56 PM
I picked up a used book, Mortal Error, by Bonar Menninger. The thoughts in the book came from a gun shop owner, Howard Donahue, who had also been one of the riflemen in an early tv reenactment/test of the Kennedy shooting.

Donahue says that the full metal jacket bullet fired by Oswald that went through Kennedy's neck and then Connelly acted like a full metal jacket bullet should have, but that the shot to Kennedy's head was not from a full metal jacket bullet. He says that the head shot was more likely from a .223 round with a thin jacket that allowed the round to blow up Kennedy's head like it did, which would not have happened with the full metal jacket round. (Did some experiments on pigs heads to prove his point.) He went through a lot of trajectory analysis that showed that the round came from directly behind Kennedy, and that the Secret Service agent standing in the car had an AR-15 in his hand. He thinks the agent lost his balance in all the excitement generated from the Oswald shot, and fired his AR-15 rifle accidentally, and that the cover up was not to hide a second assassin, but the mistake of the Secret Service.

There is also a website that used computers to recreate the shooting and they came to the conclusion that one bullet went through Kennedy and Connelly (the Oswald shot) and that the head shot to Kennedy appears to have come from behind, but then they dismiss the evidence of the second shot from behind because they can't believe it. This supports Donahue's conclusion.

http://www.jfkfiles.com/jfk/html/concl.htm

Interesting stuff and a different twist.

If you enjoyed reading about "Did secret service accidentally fire fatal shot to JFK's head" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
LOST SOUL
April 5, 2006, 02:01 PM
Wow, that was interesting and it makes you think?

ID_shooting
April 5, 2006, 02:07 PM
"Wow, that was interesting and it makes you think?"

...about buying stock in tin-foil companies :scrutiny:

ebd10
April 5, 2006, 02:18 PM
I read Mortal Error when it came out and found it to be the most plausible of all of the theories that came out of the JFK assassination. All of the other theories required conspiracies of monumental proportions, and it's hard to believe that anyone in government would keep their mouth shut when revealing thetruth might gain them votes, power, prestige, or a book deal.

Of course, if you go by what Oliver Stone put forth in his movie, the conspiracy involved everyone except JFK and Oliver Stone.

The rest of the theories involving Cuba, the Mafia, the CIA, and the Military Industrial complex are just silly.

Rockrivr1
April 5, 2006, 02:23 PM
As I was growing up I always had heard about the conspiracy theorys. I know that Oliver Stone's rendition has a lot of flaws, except the part where Kevin Costner is in the court describing the bullet tragectories. If even half of what was covered in the movie was actually passed to the public, people must have been really dumb back then to believe it.

carnaby
April 5, 2006, 02:28 PM
Sounds plausable. On the other hand, where can I get some of this stock? :)

Creeping Incrementalism
April 5, 2006, 02:40 PM
It has been conclusively proven that Oswald shot Kennedy. It's open and shut, slam-dunk, as provable as it gets without the conspirator admitting to it. Oswald was an outstanding shot, scoring near-perfect in long range rapid fire in the Corps, he had enough time to shoot, the shot wasn't particularly far, the target wasn't moving very fast, trajectories and forensics all match perfectly with Oswald being the sole shooter, and every consipiracy theory is either conclusively wrong, or depends on one expert that is completely at odds with conventional widsow and every other expert. Furthermore, Oswald was smirking during his "perp walk", as is captured on film.

Stone's theory on bullet trajectories is stupidly wrong. He put the entrance and exit holes in the right places, and the people in the wrong places, thus making it look like the bullets turned in mid-air.

The head exploded because brain tissue reacts differently than muscle and other tissue. Muscle bends, brain matter is destroyed, per Fackler. So brain tissue would separate and go flying, while muscle would stay attached.

sturmruger
April 5, 2006, 02:43 PM
They just did a special about the Kennedy assasination on one of the cable channels. It made me a believer that it happened exactly as they say. They recreated the shot perfectly even using some of the same ammo. I know everyone hates the lone gunmen theory but that is what they proved.

usp9
April 5, 2006, 02:43 PM
1) Did the Secret Service have any AR15s in 1963? I think not.

2) Did any S.S. agent report a shot fired all day? No.

3) Has it been proven over and over again that Oswald did it? Yes.

It is a shame so many people have tried to make money off of a man's murder. It is also a shame that so many gullible, naive people "feed" these shameless creeps.

RyanM
April 5, 2006, 02:44 PM
Well, here's what an actual crime scene analyst says. http://www.alexanderjason.com/jfk.htm

Jhorn
April 5, 2006, 02:45 PM
It was interesting that when Conally died there was a request to remove the bullet that was still in him but the family refused...get the tin foil ready!

BigFatKen
April 5, 2006, 03:06 PM
The Warren commision fell for this one;

If the best Marines can load and fire in 2.3 sec then 2.3x3=6.9 sec which is greater than 5.6 sec, then there must be a second shooter.
The correct answer is load one round into the chamber and wait. Then you only need to re-load two times. or 4.6 sec for a Marine. 5.6sec for Oswald.

About right.

TexasRifleman
April 5, 2006, 03:08 PM
The Secret Service shot Kennedy, Oswald took out the twin towers... Turns out Jack Ruby didn't really shoot him.

Oswald faked his own death and went into hiding to prepare for 9/11.

I swear it's true, I read it on the Internet.

Just_a_dude_with_a_gun
April 5, 2006, 03:15 PM
LOL... I've got a carcano, and I'll tell you it's one fast handling carbine, and Oswald did it.

Conspiracies involve secrets. Secrets become simply hushed conversation when more than on person knows.

Carl N. Brown
April 5, 2006, 03:20 PM
Several things overlooked by Stone in JFK reenactment in the
courtroom: John F. Kennedy and John Connally were not sitting
in equal heighth chairs in a courtroom. John and Jackie Kennedy
were seated in the touring seat of the limo, elevated at least
three inches higher than John and Nelly Connally, who were seated
in "jump seats" inset from the doors by about five inches. The first
shot, which missed, alerted Connally and he turned to his right. The
second shot occurred at a point corresponding to frames 223, 224
of the Zapruder film, which clearly show Connally lower than
Kennedy and turned to the right. The bullet holes as described
by measurements recorded on the autopsy reports do indeed
line up with the positions recreated from the limo seating and
the Zapruder film. As far as the so-called "pristine magic bullet"
appearnace goes, the 6.5mm 160grain FMJ at ~2000 fps does
penetrate deeply in consistent media and remain relatively intact:
http://www.thehighroad.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=38026&stc=1&d=1144260363
On the head shot, the 6.5 160 FMJ striking bone first would tend
to yaw, pinch in the thin middle and break into a nose section
and tail section. Most conspiracy theories ignore the nose and tail
bullet fragments found in the front floorboard of the limo. The
explosion of the front side of Kenndy's head is consistent with an
exit wound, not an entry wound.

The theory that Kennedy was accidentally shot by a Secret Service
agent's .223 was put to rest years ago by comparison of photos that
showed the agent was not in line of fire of the head wound and
no witnesses to a gunshot from the position Sercret Service agents.

cavman
April 5, 2006, 04:07 PM
Think I remember about a month or so back that a motorcycle cop's radio was recently analyzed. It was said that it was switched 'on' and its trasmission was then being recorded back at base.

The recording was then compared to the Zagruder (the Kennedy assassination film) film and the analyzers claim that there is a distinct "pop" right as the cop cruises by the grassy knoll.

The claim, therefore, is that there was indeed a second shooter and that the 'pop' was the report of a shot being fired.

Did anyone else catch this?

cavman

Dravur
April 5, 2006, 04:21 PM
Yep, I did it. I was the second gunman. I wasnt even born until a year after the event, but I did it. Yep, Aliens were involved... and Bigfoot. The Loch Ness monster planned it. Kevin Costner did it too. He was behind the grassy knoll. Leona Helmsley rode by on her broom.

Wow, I need to buy some tinfoil stock. Why is it, that someone can come up with some bizarre claim that maybe Fidel Castro personally flew up to Dallas and personally shot Kennedy. Why do we give these knuckle draggers any credibility. Look, here is a simple premise. The Government has never been very good at keeping secrets. If they are involved, someone is going to yak about it.

Now, lets get this straight. There are no aliens at Area 51. There was a lone gunman that killed Kennedy. The moon landings were not faked. The earth really is round. Your Aunt Millie is not a space alien from the planet Moog. Woody Allen is really human. I know that last one was hard to swallow. Now, take off the tinfoil hat, move back from the Nevada Desert and join society again.

Ummmm, take a bath first, though.

Im out

kfranz
April 5, 2006, 04:26 PM
There is a great deal of evidence outside the wounds suffered that point to multiple shooters. COULD Oswald have done it alone? Sure. Does the majority of the evidence support that? No.

None of the evidence supports a "who did it". What happened is not in question. "Who" did it is merely speculation.

Rockrivr1
April 5, 2006, 04:56 PM
Wait, no aliens at Area 51??!?!?!?!?!?!?!????!?!?! You must be mistaken!

Ok here comes a big can of worms. Anyone who thinks we are alone in this great big universe must think mighty highly of the human race. No way, now how we are the only intelligent (saying that with a grain of salt) species anywhere.

Ok, yes way off topic. Not to mention I'm ducking for cover.

Don't Tread On Me
April 5, 2006, 05:01 PM
I know I'm not suppose to but...

http://ranger.zftp.com/xxx/tinfoilhat.jpg



I've seen recreations that show a not-so-skilled shooter fire as many shots as Oswald supposedly did and score hits. All in the same amount of time. The distance from the book depository to where car was, wasn't that far of a shot. An average to above average shooter with a little practice on a bolt gun could probably do the same.


The majority of the "conspiracy" is created by the notion that the shots were extremely difficult and that the time frame nearly impossible. According to what standard?

Vern Humphrey
April 5, 2006, 05:15 PM
Three questions...

1) Did the Secret Service have any AR15s in 1963? I think not.

Yes. In fact there is a photo showing an agent just behind Kennedy with an AR15. He is holding it by the grip, having just pulled it from where he had it hidden, and he isn't exhibiting the best gun handling you ever saw.

2) Did any S.S. agent report a shot fired all day? No.

That's correct.
3) Has it been proven over and over again that Oswald did it? Yes.

That's also correct.

BryanP
April 5, 2006, 05:25 PM
Did secret service accidentally fire fatal shot to JFK's head?

No.

Next question.

hillbilly
April 5, 2006, 05:32 PM
Get yourself a DVD or video copy of the Discovery Channel program "Beyond the Magic Bullet."

They do a very scientific re-enactment of the shooting, with ballistics gel dummies complete with synthetic bones, from a tower representing the Schoolbook Depository, with a Carcano.

They scientifically account for the most widely known conspiracy theories.

They even replicate, twice, the same wounds found on Connolly and JFK.

They wind up with almost undeformed bullets.

It's all there.

Game. Set. Match.

hillbilly

ball3006
April 5, 2006, 05:45 PM
Would it still be a secret? Probably. I watched all the TV coverage that day and for a few days later. There was a scene where the camera was panned to the grassy knoll and in the sunlight there was a thin cloud of smoke, like when you shoot. The sun was behind the cloud, otherwise it would not be visable. I have never seen that scene since..........chris3

carnaby
April 5, 2006, 05:47 PM
One question, what was Oswalds motive? :confused:

Why did Ruby shoot him? That was pretty stupid, we never got to get to the bottom of the mess. Convenient.

Vern Humphrey
April 5, 2006, 05:53 PM
Would it still be a secret? Probably. I watched all the TV coverage that day and for a few days later. There was a scene where the camera was panned to the grassy knoll and in the sunlight there was a thin cloud of smoke, like when you shoot. The sun was behind the cloud, otherwise it would not be visable. I have never seen that scene since.

Buy any conspiracy theory book on the Kennedy assassination and you can see a still of that picture. The problem is, we know where the camera was, and we can tell the smoke is at least as far the grassy knoll (which obscures part of the cloud.) From that we can tell the minimum size of the cloud -- which would be big enough to have come from a battery of artillery.

It's actually industrial in origin, from well beyond the grassy knoll.

Infidel
April 5, 2006, 06:00 PM
I've read the book a couple of times, and other books, and watched many many reruns of the Zapruder film, and I think that Donahue is the one person who actually followed the evidence and got it right. Oswald fired two shots, one of which hit Kennedy (and Connally) and inflicted a mortal wound. The SS agent had an ND and blew Kennedy's brains out.

carnaby
April 5, 2006, 06:01 PM
But why did Oswald do it? I've never heard a convincing motive.

lesjones
April 5, 2006, 06:03 PM
In Oliver Stone's JFK the Jim Garrison/Kevin Costner character is talking about how it would be impossible for Oswald to work the bolt and fire that many times in 5.6 seconds. Meanwhile he's doing it onscreen in less time. I've seen a conspiracy video that made the same mistake.

In reality, Oswald probably took closer to eight seconds for the three shots. The first shot probably came earlier than the Warren Commission thought. See here for why (http://www.lesjones.com/posts/000092.shtml).

FWIW, JKF's head did not "blow apart." You can see the autopsy photos for yourself in Robert Groden's book.

John McAdams' site (http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm) debunks a lot of the common conspiracy stuff that gets repeated over and over.

Vern Humphrey
April 5, 2006, 06:06 PM
But why did Oswald do it? I've never heard a convincing motive.

Why did he renounce the US and go to Russia? Why did he go to Mexico? Why did he shoot at Walton Walker?

He did all of those things -- and the only good answer is "because he had a screw loose."

carnaby
April 5, 2006, 06:11 PM
Why did he renounce the US and go to Russia? Why did he go to Mexico? Why did he shoot at Walton Walker?

He did all of those things -- and the only good answer is "because he had a screw loose."

Really? I didn't know he did those things. Are we sure he did all that stuff, is it possible that that was all fabricated after his death? Or was he really just a simple nut job?

Justin
April 5, 2006, 06:12 PM
Pfft. Everyone knows that Elvis shot JFK.

Vern Humphrey
April 5, 2006, 06:27 PM
Really? I didn't know he did those things. Are we sure he did all that stuff, is it possible that that was all fabricated after his death? Or was he really just a simple nut job?

Yes, we are sure -- he did that and more.

As for fabricating it after his death, did they fabricate his wife? He married a Russian girl while in Russia!

Crosshair
April 5, 2006, 06:39 PM
But why did Oswald do it? I've never heard a convincing motive.

Some nobody, who is short a few marbles, in a dead end job, who owns a rifle and is a rather good shot, has a chance of achieving instant fame by shooting the president, who he hates because of his political views.

Sounds good enough for me. I think there are quite a few people today who would take a pot shot at Bush if they where given the chance.

Vern Humphrey
April 5, 2006, 06:44 PM
It was Kennedy's misfortune to encounter the only Leftist in the country who knew how to shoot.

1911Tuner
April 5, 2006, 07:04 PM
Quote:

>The claim, therefore, is that there was indeed a second shooter and that the 'pop' was the report of a shot being fired.<
************************************

Likely what was recorded as a "pop" was actually the bullet breaking the sound barrier as it passed. Anyone who has ever been fired on from a distance with a high-velocity rifle will report two distinct sounds. The bullet crack, followed closely by the "thump" of the rifle's report. When you are triangulated roughly equidistant from the crack and thump, the sounds are almost identical and occur at almost the same instant, making it hard to tell which is which. If you are perfectly equidistant from the crack and thump zones, the sounds occur at exactly the same instant. If you're a little closer to the bullet...as in a right triangle with the rifle at the top...and you and the crack area forming the base of the triangle...you generally hear one, followed a fraction of a second later by the other...and they still sound almost identical. The first sound will be the bullet.

In order for the two sounds to be identical, you have to be some distance from both. If the bullet passes close to you, the sounds will be distinctive...
"Crack-Thump." This is likely the explanation for so many witnesses reporting six shots fired. They didn't realize that they were hearing two sounds for each shot. I'm surprised that someone involved with the investigation didn't note that fact. Surely, there was somebody at Dealy Plaza that day who had been shot at.

The witnesses closer to the rifle heard only the rifle. The ones closer
to the Kennedy limo heard both, as did the ones positioned somewhere in between. Since he was hit when he was roughly in line with the grassy knoll, the witnesses who were between rifle and impact point truly heard a "shot" come from somewhere around the knoll.

As for the assertion that Oswald couldn't have made the three shots at such a "Long Range" in the time that it took to make them being an argument for involvement of a second rifleman...Just about any 16 year-old North Cackalackey farm boy with grandpa's Thutty-Thutty could have made those shots...at least all the ones that I know could have.

creitzel
April 5, 2006, 07:10 PM
Pfft. Everyone knows that Elvis shot JFK.

yep, and now he's out cruising the galaxy with the little grey men :evil:

Lupinus
April 5, 2006, 07:17 PM
you mean it wasn't docter winklefinch on the street corner with the candlestick?

Jeff White
April 5, 2006, 07:34 PM
I just finished reading Ultimate Sacrifice by Lamar Waldron and Thom Hartman. The authors have spent 8 years pouring over the 90,000 documents that were declassified in 1996 on the assasination. It's not an easy read. The authors didn't intend it to read like a fast paced novel like much of the other literature on the subject. It's all footnoted back to the source. I'd say it's the most credible acount to date.

Jeff

hksw
April 5, 2006, 07:35 PM
Pfft. Everyone knows that Elvis shot JFK.

Get real. It's well known it was Bigfoot.

Trebor
April 5, 2006, 07:45 PM
The SS agent named as the shooter in "Mortal Error" won a judgement against the author and publisher. I believe the book is no longer in print as a result.

Oswald could have made the shot. The time he had was longer than previously believed since the shorter time was based on faulty interperation of the motorcycle cop's audio transmissions. The distance was short, about 90 yards, and the target was moving directly away.

Oswald could have done it easily. Did he? I don't know, but I think he did.

joab
April 5, 2006, 08:22 PM
Everyone knows that Elvis shot JFK.Then explain how they are living on an island of the coast of Cuba, sharing a condo with James Dean

I saw the same show that SturmRuger and HillBilly saw the near identical wounds and bullet paths were very compelling evidence of the one shot theory

Yakko
April 5, 2006, 08:28 PM
It was Cancer Man. Doesn't anyone remember the X-Files?

I also doubt that there are aliens in Area 51, because to quote Calvin:
"The surest sign that there is intelligent life out there is that it hasn't tried to contact us." :D

SOT
April 5, 2006, 08:29 PM
Well this thread shows there are some real nut cases in the world, and some post here.

Oswald shot Kennedy. The physical evidence clearly proves it.

dfariswheel
April 5, 2006, 08:32 PM
Probably the best book debunking all the conspiracy theories is "Case Closed", by Gerald Posner.

He does an exhaustive investigation of all the theories and shoots them full of holes.
This is easy, since MOST of them are stupid at best.
Jim Garrison was a sleazy New Orleans politician who played fast and loose with facts and the truth long before he set out to make a name for himself on JFK's dead body.

He also lists the "Mysterious deaths of 100 people involved in the Kennedy conspiracy".
These 100 people who died under "mysterious" circumstances are often referenced to "prove" there was a cover up.

The list is hilarious in places.
It lists an assistant New Orleans Medical examiner, 100 pounds overweight, who smoked 4 packs of cigarettes a day, drank like a fish, and ate high-fat foods like a pig.
He "mysteriously" dropped dead of a heart attack.
He, by the way had nothing to do with the case, he was simply employed at the office.

Another was a BROTHER to some minor figure who himself had nothing to do with anything, but who was just around.

Bottom line is, all the REAL evidence points to Oswald as the sole and only shooter, and there is NO valid evidence indicating anyone else.

Much of the conspiracy theories have been overtaken by events and science.
As an example, the recent program referenced above, PROVED there was no "shooter on the grassy knoll".
The apparent shadow HAD to be one of two things, IF IT WAS A PERSON.
1. It was a person about 30 inches tall. This was indicated by a size comparison between the shadow and a real person. The shadow was WAY too small.

2. If it was a person, in order for the size to match, he would have had to be 60 yards BEHIND the knoll, AND 20 to 30 feet up in the air.

Now, no one ever reported a Tom Thumb-sized shooter, and 60 yards back would have put the shooter in the train yard standing on a cherry picker.

What all this boils down to is known as "The Great Man Syndrome".
The Great Man walks out of his palace, prepares to step into his limo, steps on a banana peel, slips falls, and breaks his neck.

That however is NOT possible. He's a Great Man, and Great Men DO NOT die common deaths like everyone else.
It HAD to be a vast conspiracy.
The banana peel was PLANTED, (after being greased).
The body guard tripped him.
He was really shot with a disintegrating poison dart.
It really wasn't him it was an impostor.
Etc.

This is why Marylin Monroe was murdered, Jessie James actually died in Texas years later, (or was it New Mexico?, Billy the Kid died an old man in Mexico, John Dillinger faked his death, the embarrassed FBI covered it up, and Dillinger wound up working in California aircraft plants until he retired.

imas
April 5, 2006, 08:52 PM
There are no aliens at Area 51.

That is correct. With all the publicity it has recieved it is probably the most famous military base in the country. Not very secret. The "good stuff" has been relocated to a more secure location. 51 does still remain an excellent base for research and testing but not for the really secret stuff. ;)

nfl1990
April 5, 2006, 08:58 PM
Sounds good enough for me. I think there are quite a few people today who would take a pot shot at Bush if they where given the chance.

Except most of those who want to, regard guns as evil and would never touch one.

JohnKSa
April 5, 2006, 09:24 PM
I can't say I've read EVERY book about JFK's assassination, but I've read more of them than anyone else I know. I still own around 30 of them and have probably read double that over the years. That doesn't count all the documentaries I've watched on the topic.

I will say this. Of the conspiracy theories, Meninger's is probably the most plausible.

But in my opinion, the only theory that holds up to careful scrutiny is that Oswald did it on his own.

BTW, the motorcycle mike theory was conclusively disproved awhile back. Based on a reconstruction of various photographs and pictures of the scene, the motorcycle wasn't where it would have needed to be for the sound analysis to be meaningful. And, of course, the officer driving the cycle has steadfastly maintained for years that his radio was working fine and the mike wasn't stuck open on the day of the assassination.

torpid
April 5, 2006, 09:26 PM
Did secret service accidentally fire fatal shot to JFK's head?

(Without tinfoil hat): ...No.


Did secret service accidentally fire fatal shot to JFK's head?

(With tinfoil hat): ...Yes.


Did secret service accidentally fire fatal shot to JFK's head?

(With super-duper professional strength tinfoil hat): No...

;)

lesjones
April 5, 2006, 09:51 PM
"Really? I didn't know he did those things. Are we sure he did all that stuff, is it possible that that was all fabricated after his death?"

It's well established that Oswald tried to kill retired general Edwin Walker (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edwin_Walker), who was a staunch anti-Communist and was affiliated with the John Birch society.

How do we know that?


A bullet embedded in the wall of Walker's study matched the rifle recovered from the School Book Depository
Once Oswald was captured police recovered reconaissance photos Oswald took of the area around Walker's house. The photos have characteristics that match Oswald's camera.
Before leaving the house to kill Walker, Oswald gave his wife written instructions on where to go to bail him out of jail, which bills had been paid, etc. - he expected to be captured.
His wife testified that Oswald burned some of his documents related to the assassination atttempt, and stated that he was the one who had tried to kill Walker.


Oswald was a big time screwup and nutball. He was court martialed twice in the military, got out by claiming his mother was sick, renounced his U.S. citizenship, defected to the Soviet Union, attempted suicide, returned to the U.S., tried to ingratiate himself to the Cubans, and beat his wife. Occasionally you'll see him painted as some sort of all-American boy by the pro-conspiracy people. Don't believe it.

P.S. When you fill out your 4473 and have to answer whether you've ever renounced your U.S. citizenship, you probably have Oswald to thank. I'm guessing that part of the Gun Control Act of 1968 - as well as the end of mail order gun sales - was written with him in mind.

ARperson
April 5, 2006, 10:53 PM
A point of clarification: The "magic bullet," which isn't so magic since they have easily shown the errors in the original assumptions, is completely different from the shot that hit the back of Kennedy's head and has absolutely no bearing on the original question.

Some here need a lesson is the rules of logic since it has NOT been conclusively proven that Oswald fired the shots, either of them. It has only been proven that he COULD have, and likely did. There's nothing conclusive about it. (Why else would it still be such a hot topic?)

I too have a unique interest in the assassination (might have something to do with being born on 11-22), own lots of books on the subjects, read lots of books on the subject, watched lots of documentaries on the subject (for what that's worth), including the book mentioned in the original post. And I find that it's basis is the most logical.

If I remember correctly, the auther actually set out to prove the Warren Commission correct in the "lone gunman" theory and would have except for the trajectory of the bullet that struck Kennedy in the back of the head (He does believe that Oswald fired the shot that struck both Kennedy and Connally, assuming it was in fact Oswald in the Book Deposity building and OSwald that fired the rifle). I haven't read the book in years so the details are a bit fuzzy, but the guy used only math to come up with his results. Seems a lot better basis for a conclusion that anything else I've seen.

The other reason I find the theory credible is that the author didn't try and speculate (at least I dont' remember him doing so) on the whys of the assassination, just the facts. No politics to get in the way of his results.

I hate this thread since so many other aspects were brought up that do not relate directly to the original question. Not that I dislike straying, but the topic is so darn big it's almost impossible to have a discussion without bringing in a bazillion other issues. It truly is a web.

loadedround
April 5, 2006, 11:23 PM
You guys are wrong! I got it it from a good source that Hillary Clinton did it because she was secretly in love with Marilyn Monroe...and that is the cold fact:rolleyes: .

SOT
April 6, 2006, 12:01 AM
A point of clarification: The "magic bullet," which isn't so magic since they have easily shown the errors in the original assumptions, is completely different from the shot that hit the back of Kennedy's head and has absolutely no bearing on the original question.Well I agree the bullet was not magic, and the evidence showed it caused the wounds to both Kennedy and Connally, your statement about original assumptions is not quite correct. The original hypothesis, and the one proven by the Warren Commission, was that the bullet struck Kennedy in the back, and travelled on to cause the wounds to Connally. The "alternate theories" did not have access to the limo, and did not use correct body positions for Kennedy and Connally, and therefore developed the "magic" crap.

Later analysis of the evidence at the House Select Committee on Assinations, showed the wounds to Kennedy and Connally were from the same bullet, the one recovered at Parkland. Also, modern computer modelling of the shots, confirmed what the Warren Commission investigators had modelled using an exact duplicate of the limo, and mannequins made to the exact size of Kennedy and Connally.

Which all brings us back to my original statement. Oswald shot Kennedy. The physical evidence clearly proves it.

Dravur
April 6, 2006, 01:57 AM
OK, THe Aliens aren't at Area 51 anymore, they are now at Area 52. I love that the Tinfoil hat crowd says that Well, Oswald could have done it, if he was there, if he had the gun and if he might have actually been a real person. Yep, and O.J Simpson didn't do it either.

Ok, take off the tinfoil. Oswald did it. There, done. I was there. I was in the book depository and saw him do it. He handed me 4 forms of I.D and I took some hair for DNA analyses. I then had him sign an Affidavit that he was going to kill Kennedy and that he was a total Whack-Job. I then took a core sample of the gun and got one of the bullets for comparison. I then had a famed psychic do a brain scan and had him write an affidavit too. We determined that yes, this was the whacko that shot Kennedy.

Ok, now here comes the fact that will just part your tinfoil.....Sometimes, the most obvious solution....IS the solution.

Have you ever wondered why books that come out on this subject have to choose selective facts and always say it was the mob, Castro, Hillary Clinton, Proffesor Bobo, or that lady that played Hotlips on MASH. They do it to......sell books..... Get it? If you say that Oswald did it and everything makes sense, no book sales. If you say it was all organized by a 2 Year old Bill Gates, then the Tinfoil crowd will wet their polyester pants, crawl out of their mother's basement to go to a book signing and discuss the fact that Bigfoot just married Elvis.

by the way, everyone knows Kennedy is still alive but after plastic surgery looks like Ozzie Smith and is living in an Old folks home with a mummy.

Im out

Cosmoline
April 6, 2006, 02:01 AM
except the part where Kevin Costner is in the court describing the bullet tragectories. If even half of what was covered in the movie was actually passed to the public, people must have been really dumb back then to believe it.

People now have to be even dumber to believe something they see in an Oliver Stone film.

Easy shots. I could have made them, no problem. Any halfway decent rifle shooter could, let alone a Marine marksman.

Get over it.

JohnKSa
April 6, 2006, 02:24 AM
Cosmoline,

My first serious doubts began when I visited Dealey Plaza and stood in the book depository window (one over from the actual window--access is restricted to the actual window from whence the shot was fired). I was immediately struck by the fact that it wasn't a hard shot at all.

The idea that the shot(s) were nearly impossible to make was sort of the foundation of all of the initial conspiracy theories, and I had just seen with my own eyes that it wasn't impossible, it wasn't even hard. From then on, I took a far more critical view of the "evidence" used to support the various theories and found that in virtually every case, the "evidence" didn't hold up.

Your comment about the movie by Oliver Stone is spot on. It was pure entertainment. I could tell just from the previews of the movie that there was no real attempt to be factual.

Snake Eyes
April 6, 2006, 02:38 AM
O.J Simpson didn't do it either

Crap. At this point, it really is ridiculous to suggest the truth:

OJ SIMPSON KILLED KENNEDY

See? Ridiculous.

(PS--Elvis set him up to do it, but "E" didn't actually DO the deed himself.)

PPS--after plastic surgery looks like Ozzie Smith
Wrong Ozzie. Here's a clue: JFK bit the head off a bat/dove/gerbil at a concert in the '70s

Headless Thompson Gunner
April 6, 2006, 02:54 AM
Vice President Lyndon Johnson ordered the hit on JFK so he could be President, which occured within hours enroute back to Washington D.C. by air where he arrived just in time to escalate the Viertnam War so Lady Bird's family stock in Halliburton (read Brown and Root govt. contractor) would escalate into the stratospher. You kill somebody, do it on turf where you control the authorities, then get the hell out of town.

Now look at Dick Cheney and his defense contractor ties. Fortunately for George Busch, Cheney doesn't want to be president, he just likes to count the money while Busch is the front man. Cahoots, they used to call it.Don;t take this the wrong way, but do you honestly believe this?

gunsmith
April 6, 2006, 04:41 AM
A mysterious man, known only as "the Colonel" was seen in the vicinity
of the grassy knoll on the days preceeding JFK's suicide.

I was well known among certain chefs that lady bird was extremly jealous of jacki o's magnificant fried chicken and had hired the mysterious man, known only as "the Colonel" to both hound JFK to suicide and abscond with the fried chicken recipe.

The mysterious man, known only as "the Colonel" was successfull and became wealthy with his ill gotten fried chicken recipe.

kfranz
April 6, 2006, 09:46 AM
Well this thread shows there are some real nut cases in the world, and some post here.

Oswald shot Kennedy. The physical evidence clearly proves it.

If I were to ignore enough evidence, I could prove that the world was flat

Those that want to take a decent look at the evidence in this case should read the books by Harold Wiesbert and/or David Wrone. Wiesberg was a much prolific writer and has a number of books whose purpose is NOT to point out who did it, but to look at the evidence. Same with Wrone, although he doesn't have as much material in print.

Those who want to believe either in the vast consipiracy or the single rifleman should read whatever authors fit their pet theories, or watch whatever television documentaries fit their bent.

Gerald Posner, c'mon..... :rolleyes:

kfranz
April 6, 2006, 10:53 AM
Never believe anything you read on an internet message board.

Does that include your advice? :)

Headless Thompson Gunner
April 6, 2006, 12:42 PM
:D

Carl N. Brown
April 6, 2006, 01:46 PM
"The majority of the "conspiracy" is created by the notion that the
shots were extremely difficult and that the time frame nearly impossible."

Part of the need for conspiracy theories is the idea that Kennedy
dieing at the hands of a lone nut loser is just too trivial and random
to want to accept: a Shakespearian crime needs a Shakespearian
villain, and Oswald is just pathetic. But Oswald in some ways fits the
mold of the nut who killed John Lennon, or the losers who perpetrated
the Dublane, Port Arthur and Hingersford massacres. And these crimes
too have lead to conspiracy theories.

Conspiracy theories are fueled by cover-ups. Between 1865 and 1901,
four U.S. Presidents were assassinated, The Secret Service was put
on the detail of protecting the White House and President. For
over sixty years, no successful assassinations of a U.S. President.
They got complacent and failed at their job so there was a certain
amount of KYA cover-up going on after the fact but it does not rise
to a conspiracy involving the Secret Service.

The outlandish claim by Oliver Stone's JFK that a conspiracy
by LBJ, CIA, USSS, FBI, Pentagon, Bell helicopter, the gay underground
of New Orleans, etc etc etc to effect a coup d'etat via presidetial
assassination, with a coverup by Earl Warren, et alia., has lead me
to feel that Oliver Stone's JFK is a attempt at a left-wing coup
d'etat via character assassination.

Dr.Rob
April 6, 2006, 03:50 PM
There are some things that bug me about the whole thing.

But the rifle, the shots, the bullets have now all be proven not just plausible, but have been replicated with ballistics gel and bone.

Who Oswald was, why he did it and how he managed to pull of some very screwy thing in the early '60s (how does a defector get issued a hassle free visa back in the USA and why does the USSR let his wife go?) are all good questions.

My money is still on the mob and Sam Giancana being the 'mastermind' if there was one.

ulflyer
April 6, 2006, 06:28 PM
I recall seeing a brief TV shot of a bullet laying on a gurney in the Hosp that Kennedy was taken too. Don't remember that anyting was said about it; it was just another filler scene as the reporters were trying to piece togather what had happened and everything was in turmoil. I think it was before Kennedy had been officially pronounced. Anyone else remember seeing that bullet, and what significance is/was it?

Carl N. Brown
April 7, 2006, 01:12 PM
This was the bullet that is believed to have penetrated Kennedy's
neck, Connally's chest and wrist, lodged in a shallow wound in
Commally's thigh, and fell out of the wound on Connally's gurney
in the hospital. (Of course, Oliver Stone's JFK shows Jack Ruby
planting the bullet.)

My post#15 on this thread includes images of that "Magic Bullet" WC399
and a bullet recovered from my own tests of 6.5mm Carcano 160gr FMJ.

Back to the courtroom demo in Oliver Stone's JFK which millions
of people have seen in theaters and on television: Two men sitting on a
flat courtroom floor in equal heighth chairs, front to back, and
Kevin "Jim Garrison" Costner demontrating that the bullet wounds do
not line up. HERE IS THE ACTUAL SEATING ARRANGEMENT:
http://www.thehighroad.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=38120&stc=1&d=1144425652
http://www.thehighroad.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=38121&stc=1&d=1144425652

Cosmoline
April 7, 2006, 03:15 PM
Part of the problem is, most Americans have no clue how rifles function. They assume that a close range shot from the sewer or the grassy knoll would have been much easier to make than the shot from the depository a little further back. Of course, it's actually MORE difficult to hit a target moving across your field of fire at close range with a rifle than one shifting steadily away from your aim point. It's the difference between moving your rifle very slightly up and over and trying to swing it like a shotgun.

People are amazingly ill informed, however. And they're desperate to find meaning in the act. For those who loved JFK like a demigod, it's impossible for them to imagine him getting killed because of one crazy guy with a rifle.

el44vaquero
April 7, 2006, 03:48 PM
With many hours of training, I was able to train Mr. Tinkles to duplicate the shots. It can be done!
http://www.thehighroad.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=38125&d=1144435690
38125

EddieCoyle
April 7, 2006, 04:30 PM
by the way, everyone knows Kennedy is still alive but after plastic surgery looks like Ozzie Smith and is living in an Old folks home with a mummy.


I thought I was the only one that saw Bubba Ho-Tep.

El Barto
April 7, 2006, 05:22 PM
Bubba Ho-Tep was a great movie. I would have liked to have seen JFK and Elvis end up and traveling around fighting evil mummies instead of ending up the way they did. Now back on topic....

I think the best critique of the JFK conspiracy was the episode of Quantum Leap. For those not familiar with the show, it is about a scientist (Sam) that leaps through time into other people’s bodies. In this episode, Sam leaped into Oswald and was beginning to understand Oswald’s life, beliefs, and possible motive and Sam had the intention of changing history by stopping the assassination on. BUT, was it Oswald; did he act alone or was he framed, etc, etc. Just when you are getting caught up in the theories and right before the shots were fired, Sam leaped out of Oswald and into a Secret Service guy, and saved Jackie.

Jackie was then able to become an inspiration for the country by showing her incredible strength and courage and helped lead the country through those terrible times.

I guess the moral was that the incident matters more then the why’s, and we have to move past it.

cowboybobb693
April 7, 2006, 08:20 PM
Who cares ????

'Card
April 7, 2006, 08:38 PM
If anyone believes that Oswald couldn't have acted alone, I challenge you right here and now. Stop reading all the books. Stop watching all the TV shows and movies. Go to Dallas yourself. You can tour the book depository, and you can look through the window that Oswald shot from, the spot where the car was located is clearly marked, and traffic still rolls down that street, and you can judge it for yourself just like I did.

Anyone with any experience with a rifle would stand in that window, look down at the street, and two things happen. First, it becomes immediately clear why Oswald chose that window and why he fired when he did - and second, you stand there and think "cake shot".

halfacop
April 7, 2006, 10:47 PM
I just can't get over the head snapping back and to the left when he was shot. I know they say it was a "nerve action" but I don't buy that. I've never shot anything in all my years of hunting and had it snap back at me when I pulled the trigger.

For me there is to much evidence against the lone gunman idea to just say thats how it was and he did it alone. I'm no expert or anything its just my 2 cents!

JohnKSa
April 7, 2006, 11:12 PM
you stand there and think "cake shot".Before you even climb the stairs, you will be surprised at how SMALL Dealey Plaza is. I could hardly believe my eyes. After seeing it repeatedly in documentaries and period movies & pictures, I was expecting a large area. The whole thing is MUCH smaller in person.

I fully agree with the comment about the shot. In fact, having been there, I'm kind of surprised that Oswald actually missed with one shot.

R.W.Dale
April 7, 2006, 11:17 PM
http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y96/krochus/smack/kittens-cant-save.jpg

Detritus
April 8, 2006, 12:10 AM
I'm kind of surprised that Oswald actually missed with one shot.


best theory i've heard on this was that the miss was him taking his first shot with that POS scope the rifle came with, discovering that it was NOT zeroed (or "no longer zeroed" IF he ever did zero it) to the rifle, And thereafter switching to the irons for shots two and three.

Burt Blade
April 8, 2006, 01:20 AM
First, obtain the extra wide roll of foil.
Tear off a strip as long as it is wide.
Fold it into a triangle, shiny side out. (To better reflect the rays)
Wrap your head with it, tying it in the back.
Smooth it down to a tight-fitting skull cap.
Conceal it with a baseball cap so the Masters do not know you have evaded their Contol Rays.

Now all will be clear thoughts!

stolivar
April 8, 2006, 03:07 PM
Not once did the reinact the second and fatal shot. from what I seen it the films he looked to be hit from the front on the fatal blow. Most of the back of his head was destroyed. don't look like a shot from the back to me. His head slams backwards from the force not to the front. Myth busters and them only prove the first wounding shot not the last. You never hear from any of the theories about the last shot.


steve:neener:

halfacop
April 8, 2006, 03:09 PM
EXACTLY!

SOT
April 8, 2006, 03:18 PM
You never hear from any of the theories about the last shot.Are you crazy? Detailed analysis of the head shot has been provided by the Warren Commission, House Select Committee on Assassinations (9 person team of the world's best pathologists led by Dr. Michael Baden), Failure Analysis, Inc., etc, etc. The variety of info regarding the head shot is nicely summarized in the book "Case Closed." There certainly is a great deal of information about the head shot.

jerkface11
April 8, 2006, 03:43 PM
Isn't the real question "Why did Ruby shoot Oswald"?

Crosshair
April 8, 2006, 09:05 PM
Another theory (From "Case Closed")about the first shot Detritus is that Oswald shot through the trees and the bullet hit a branch and was either deflected or desintigrated. The trees where never inspected to see if a bullet hit a branch since nobody cared about the first shot at the time

IMHO Oswald would have not have used the scope at the "close" range that the first shot was taken. For all we knew he hated the sope and ever zeroed it. Just throwing out ideas.

I have a scope on my 22-250 that I hate and have not shot that gun in a long time since there are no open sights. I need to get around to mounting the used scope I bought onto it so I can use it again.

lesjones
April 8, 2006, 11:00 PM
<i>"I just can't get over the head snapping back and to the left when he was shot. I know they say it was a "nerve action" but I don't buy that. I've never shot anything in all my years of hunting and had it snap back at me when I pulled the trigger."</i>

Scroll down this page and you'll find some theories about how that could happen. There are videos of melons and human skills pitching backward (toward the gun) when shot.

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/dealey.htm

That page also has a video of a goat jerking violently after being shot. The Warren Commission was shown that very video and caused them to conclude that JFK's head movement could have been neurological. (His earlier movement on the first shot - shoulders going up and hands going towards throat - is apparently a common reaction to a thoracic shooting.)

DKSuddeth
April 8, 2006, 11:23 PM
I read this book, although an interesting read, it's difficult to place a belief in the theory this guy presents when JFK's brain is missing. But it's always lots of fun to speculate on the whos, hows, and whys.

Cosmoline
April 9, 2006, 12:10 AM
I've never shot anything in all my years of hunting and had it snap back at me when I pulled the trigger.

I dare say you haven't made any cranium hits on advanced hominids or primates, either. Frame 313 of the Zapruder film clearly shows the blow out heading out in the direction of the exit wound. If the shot had come from the side, the blowout would have gone towards Jackie, along with the bullet. The "back and to the left" movement afterwards is a spasm. If you go forward a few more frames you see his body go limp. Now you can't tell me you've never seen game spasm after a CNS hit? If you looked at their actions with high speed film, it might well look like the animal was jerking towards your direction of shot.

Isn't the real question "Why did Ruby shoot Oswald"?

That is a much more interesting question, as are the questions of how Oswald was allowed to operate as freely as he did given his background. But 90% of the energy has gone into trying to attack the one point we're certain on--that the shots were taken by a single rifleman from the book depository.

roo_ster
April 9, 2006, 03:44 AM
I moved to Dallas in 1999. Later went to the book depository with family to see it all. As I stood there, in the window, I thought, "What's all the fuss about?" Meaning, the shots were entirely do-able.

Frankly, I never really cared "who shot JFK?" I didn't think much of him as a President or a man. It was a tragedy for his family, alright, but all the wailing & moaning by JFK-o-philes is nauseating. The obsessive conspiracy-mongering is absolutely grotesque.

Come to Dallas & see for yourself. After you see the reality of the ground, we can go for a couple of brews & one fine chicken-fried steak at the YO Ranch Restaurant.

kfranz
April 9, 2006, 08:22 AM
Another theory (From "Case Closed")about the first shot Detritus is that Oswald shot through the trees and the bullet hit a branch and was either deflected or desintigrated. The trees where never inspected to see if a bullet hit a branch since nobody cared about the first shot at the time

The fact that you don't know where the first bullet hit just kills your credibility. The first shot hit the curb in front of the limo, "shrapneling" a bystander. They DID care about ALL the shots, as long as they fit the 1 gunman theory... :rolleyes:

Seriously, you lone gunman guys, go read some Weisburg. Look at the evidence, then ask yourself, "how's that fit?"

dfaugh
April 9, 2006, 09:28 AM
The problem with almost any of the theories is that there are always assumptions being made.

I watched the one show that was on very recently, that very carefully and scientifically tried to reconstruct everything, from the positions they were in, to sound sychronization to the tape, trajectories, and even testing with carefully placed ballistic gelation blocks. And it was very convincing in support of the "lone gunman theory". Until you take a step back and realize that, if any of the timing, or distances or other variables were a bit off, it may or may not hold water. And they didn't answer a couple of the puzzling questions that remain to this day. Basically what it proved was that it was POSSIBLE (maybe even probable) that it happened that way.

Don't think there will ever be a truly definitive answer.

(And, yes, I researched this alot, some years ago, as part of a class exercise, we concluded there was another shooter. Also, even assuming LHO did all the shooting, there were almost certainly others involved, and possibly present (maybe as "backup"). The fact that someone wanted Oswald silenced lends alot of credibility to these theories.)

lazarus
April 9, 2006, 01:10 PM
Posner has his share of critics, as well.

http://home.comcast.net/~dperry1943/closed.html


There is also a quite interesting controversy about James Files, confessed assassin of JFK. More on that here:

http://www.jfkmurdersolved.com/confession2.htm

One aspect of this I find interesting was the report I read about the limo being returned to Dearborn for refurbishing immediately after the shooting in Dallas. The Chief of the department in charge of glass and windshields (as well as others) has stated that there was a bullet hole found low in the windscreen. The exit hole was inside the vehicle with the entry hole obviously in front of the limo. I haven't seen this discussed, but take it for what it's worth.........

usp9
April 9, 2006, 02:43 PM
Quote:
I read this book, although an interesting read, it's difficult to place a belief in the theory this guy presents when JFK's brain is missing. But it's always lots of fun to speculate on the whos, hows, and whys.

ccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccc

JFK's brain is not missing as some conspiracy nuts say. It is with all the other evidence in storage at the Archives in D.C.

ctdonath
April 9, 2006, 11:15 PM
Really? I didn't knowAnd that is why these conspiracy theories perpetuate: enough of the audience doesn't know enough of the details to make an informed evaluation, and the the conspiracy theory concoctors abuse this ignorance. Those who understand well enough are satisfied with a well-informed opinion and move on; those who don't get all wrapped up in the "conspiracy" and perpetuate the half-truths and outright lies ... unfortunately, the former tends to move on to better things while the latter perpetuates itself, so the conspiracy theries never die, irritating the heck out of the rest of us who want to move on.

ctdonath
April 9, 2006, 11:27 PM
some very screwy thing in the early '60s (how does a defector get issued a hassle free visa back in the USA and why does the USSR let his wife go?)Right now, the former head Afghani propagandist/apologist for the Taliban is (or has been accepted to) attending classes at Yale.

Very screwy things happen, especially in government bureacracies.

ctdonath
April 9, 2006, 11:30 PM
My money is still on the mobBest theory I've heard re: JFK & the mob is that when JFK was shot, the mob panicked that they might be implicated and thus tried to cover up anything that might wrongly lead the assasination trail to them. Kinda hard for the mob to convince the police they did not kill someone...

ctdonath
April 9, 2006, 11:49 PM
For those who won't be visiting the Book Depository in person, may I suggest you peruse the Internet for the program "JFK Reloaded". This controversial "game" - a 3D first-person "shooter" - painstakingly reconstructs the scenario, right down to bullet trajectory and interaction with internal organs. Letting the user experience and run the incident from a first-person perspective makes it abundantly clear in seconds that no conspiracy is needed, and the "lone gunman" scenario is entirely, even uniquely, plausible. Attempts can be reviewed & replayed in slow & reverse motion from multiple angles, including bullet's-eye view and from the grassy knoll. Bullet path is also computed and displayed, taking into account behaviors of various substances struck.

Not only does "JFK Reloaded" show that the horrible act could easily be done from the Depository window - especially as the receeding limo is hardly moving relative to targeting - it also shows that making the shot from the grassy knoll would be significanly more difficult precisely because the limo was travelling rapidly & laterally at close range.

Ala Dan
April 10, 2006, 12:36 AM
I too really never cared much for JFK, as during his Presidency (with the aid
of his sorry no good brother) ; the South was in deep turmoil. Not everybody
(including myself) was caught up in all that mess. I was in my teens, in HS
and getting ready to join the armed forces of the United States; which I
did on 09 November 1965. From that point on, my plate was full. But, what
I would like too know is why Mr. Ruby killed Oswald? And, wasn't Ruby some
sort'a big time crime figure himself.

JohnKSa
April 10, 2006, 02:42 AM
why Mr. Ruby killed Oswald? And, wasn't Ruby some sort'a big time crime figure himself.'Cause he was an even bigger fruitcake than Oswald. He did have some ties to organized crime, but he was FAR from a big time anything. Just someone who was stupid enough to think he was doing everyone a favor by killing Oswald.

Oswald's brother is convinced that Oswald did it and did it by himself.

Crosshair
April 10, 2006, 02:51 AM
I'm sorry you misunderstand me kfranz. Yes I know about the bullet hitting the curb. I was just explaining another theory about WHY/HOW Oswald missed the first shot. We know that the bullet or most of the bullet (if the bullet partially broke up in flight from hitting a branch) hit the curb. Nobody knows for sure why/how Oswald missed the first shot. I was just pointing another theory about the miss itself. Where it landed was not important in my post above.

The fact remains that the trees where never looked at to see if Oswald may have fired through the trees, thus explaining why the first shot missed. Since the first shot did no real damage, it is just a footnote in the story of the assasination.

LAK
April 10, 2006, 07:17 AM
The shot that struck John Kennedy in the head struck him in the upper right forehead.

This is evident from the autopsy photos; one earlier photo in black and white photo exhibits what appears to be a small entrance wound near the hairline, top right forehead. However in a later color photo, this whole area has been excised with something sharp - leaving a gaping deep and wide "v" opening back along the scalp.

Not only that, doctors and other eye witnesses have testified on film (I have about a half dozen on one disk) that there was a large exit wound at the back of the head. In the Zapruder film at the bullet impact pieces of his scalp and brain matter exploded from the back of his head and landed on the trunk of the limo and beyond. If you watch the Zapruder film in entirety, Jackie can be seen picking pieces up and attempting to place them back on his head. Not, as often popularly described as "reaching out to the Secret Service agent" that jumped onto the back of the car.

Something else that can be clearly seen in a close examination of the Zapruder film is Kennedy's Secret Service limo driver; who spent most of the time after the throat shot, and while other shots were ongoing, looking back at Kennedy - as was the second agent in the front of the limo. That is until the fatal headshot sent Kennedy's brains flying. The driver then faced forward, hunkered down on the wheel, and stepped on the gas. He did a great job of keeping Kennedy in the kill zone until the job was done.

The agents that would normally stand on the back of the limo were pulled - I have this on fil too. One of the throwing up his hands and shaking his head as he walks away.

Another fairytale official story and a concerted coverup.

---------------------------------------

http://ussliberty.org
http://ssunitedstates.org

Eleven Mike
April 10, 2006, 09:34 AM
Simply put, the facts do not support the "lone president" theory. The success of the cover-up is evident by the fact that so few "conspiracy theorists" are aware that, while JFK was elected to the office, his identical twin sister Kelly was mistakenly sworn in. The hit was, of course, an attempt to eliminate the embarrassing "second president" who was concealed behind the grassy knoll. The "magic bullets" supplied by Abraham Zapruder were purportedly designed to strike KFK while avoiding JFK, but they seem to have worked in precisely the opposite manner, using their "controlled trajectory" to actually target the President, rather than change course to maneuver around him. Meanwhile, KFK's SS detail returned fire in various directions, only later to discover that their ammunition had been replaced with blanks. This is the only suitable explanation for the smoke near the knoll. The "malfunction" of the magic bullets is too easily explained by the fact that Abe Zapruder was Jewish and therefore an Evil Zionist, which obscures the more disturbing fact that they were produced by Haliburton/Kellog/Brown&Root. Majority share-holder Lady Bird Johnson had obviously sabotaged the project for her husband's sake. Ruby, as can be easily shown, was Kelly Kennedy's lover, and killed Oswald in retaliation, although Oswald and Ruby have subsequently been seen together in a Nevada sheep-camp and were reportedly sharing a tent.

roo_ster
April 10, 2006, 11:32 AM
While most folks are familiar with Occam's Razor (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam's_Razor)...
"entities should not be multiplied beyond necessity."

...when multiple competing theories have equal predictive powers, the principle recommends selecting those that introduce the fewest assumptions and postulate the fewest hypothetical entities.

Not as many are famiiar "Ockham's Kitchen Sink"...
"When multiple competing theories have equal predictive powers, the principle recommends selecting those that introduce the most assumptions and postulate the most hypothetical entities. Make especial care to include aliens, mobsters, and conspiratorial elements."

Not coincidentally, old Bill Ockham stored his tin foil under his kitchen sink...

Doc Lukens
April 10, 2006, 12:50 PM
LAK wrote
>The shot that struck John Kennedy in the head struck him in the upper right forehead.

>This is evident from the autopsy photos; one earlier photo in black and white photo exhibits what appears to be a small entrance wound near the hairline, top right forehead. However in a later color photo, this whole area has been excised with something sharp - leaving a gaping deep and wide "v" opening back along the scalp.


Take a good look at those photos. I have them in a powerpoint that I use in my history classes, so I pulled them up as I read your post. There does "appear" to be a small entrance wound in the B/W as you point out. But notice in the color photo with the "wide 'v' opening" that there is solid skull under that very opening. If that were an entrance wound in the flesh, would there not also be a hole in the bone? Or disintegrated bone, even? I think the whole idea about that wide "v" incision was to see what was under that hole....

Carl N. Brown
April 10, 2006, 01:47 PM
The Zapruder film, camera speed 18.3 frames per second, gives
a basis for timing the shots; however, the only shot that is
unquestioned is the shot that hit Kennedy's head at Frame 312,
which is usually conceded to be the last shot.

The Warren Report based two possble timings on the memories of
photographers who claimed they snapped photos simultaneously with
gunshots. Analysis of the Phillip L. Willis photo shows the
limousine in a position corresponding to about Zapruder Frame 210.

Analysis of the James W. Altgens (AP) photo shows the limousine
in a position corresponding to Zapruder Frame 255.

That frame 210 and 255 timing depends on the photographers
reacting immediately and that the sounds they reacted to being
simultaneous with the impact of the bullets. Sound travels at
~1080 feet per second, a rifle will make a muzzle blast, a super
sonic bullet will make a sonic boom until the velocity falls below
~1080 fps, and a nearby bullet impact on something solid, like
pavement, can be as loud as the other two. Also echos from
buildings or the concrete walls on the Grassy Knoll (TM) add to
the uncertainty of what sound the photographers were preceiving.

Both timings contradict the memory of Gov. John Connally who
claimed he heard a shot, turned to his right, and was hit by the
second shot.

The later Failure Analysis Associates timing is based on computer
analysis of a first-generation copy of the Zapruder film made
from the original negative. The FaAA timing also agrees with Gov.
Connally's recollection of the sequence of shots: Connally is seen
turning (Frames 161-167) in response to the first shot and Frames
223-225 show Connally and Kennedy reacting to the second bullet
that wounded both men.

From the sixth story window of the Texas School Book Depository,
during the Warren Commission re-enctment, the limo is visible on
Elm Street, except for a period corresponding to Zapruder film
frames 166 through 210, when the view is obscured by a tree.

WARREN REPORT TIMINGS

Shot 1 Frame 213, 0.0 seconds, 178 feet (59 yards) Hit
Shot 2 Frame 255, 2.3 seconds later, 218 feet (73 yards) Miss
Shot 3 Frame 312, 3.1 seconds later, 265 feet (88 yards) Hit
Total 5.4 seconds

Shot 1 Frame 225, 0.0 seconds, 190 feet (63 yards) Hit
Shot 2 Frame 255, 1.6 seconds later, 218 feet (73 yards) Miss
Shot 3 Frame 312, 3.2 seconds later, 265 feet (88 yards) Hit
Total 4.8 seconds

FAILURE ANALYSIS ASSOCIATES (FaAA) TIMING

Shot 1 Frame 160, 0.0 seconds, 136 feet (45 yards) Miss
Shot 2 Frame 224, 3.5 seconds later, 190 feet (63 yards) Hit
Shot 3 Frame 312, 4.8 seconds later, 265 feet (88 yards) Hit
Total 8.3 seconds

Mitigating against a first shot before Zapruder frame 166
is that the steeper angle and more relative movement of the limo
would make a miss more likely. Between Zapruder frames 210 and
312, the angle of fire would be shallower and the limo would
be moving down Elm Street at eleven miles per hour almost in
a straight line from the window. A shot from the Grassy Knoll (TM)
would require hitting a target passing the line of sight at
a right angle at eleven miles an hour, like shooting skeet with
a rifle. I agree with cosmoline: the Grassy Knoll (TM) shot is
much more difficult than the TSBD sixyth window shot.

http://www.thehighroad.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=38237&stc=1&d=1144686926

The Warren Report did not exclude the possibility of a first
shot that missed before frame 166 when the limo went under the
tree. However, the Warren Report leaned toward placing the first
shot between frame 210 when the limo came out from under the tree
(also corresponding to photographer Willis' recollection), and
frame 225 when Kennedy is clearly reaching for his throat.
The Warren Report placed the shot that missed as a second shot
timed at frame 255 by the Algens photo. But the timing of the
Willis and Altgens photos is dependent on the photographers'
recollections of perceived sounds.

http://www.thehighroad.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=38238&stc=1&d=1144686926
From the Warren Commission re-enactment: the view through Oswald's
riflescope at a position corresponding to Zapruder frame 255.
The Cadillac limousine and its seating arrangement do not precisely
match the original Lincoln and the touring seat/jump seat arrangement,
but this shows they were easy shots from a rest.

The Warren Report's bias toward a first shot that hit and a
second that missed resulted in a tortured timeline. Also distorting
the Warren Report timing of the shots was the fact that the best
speed of an FBI agent testing the gun was three shots in 4.6
seconds for an elapsed time of 2.3 seconds between shots that
became sacrosanct even to the critics who claimed the FBI was
either part of a cover-up or involved in the assassination itself.

Marina Oswald testified Lee practiced operating the gun in
their New Orleans apartment; he was more familiar with his gun
than the FBI agent who tested it.

What has puzzled me for years:
http://www.thehighroad.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=38239&stc=1&d=1144686926
LEFT: Found on the sixth floor, TSBD:
- one live round in the firing chamber of the rifle,
- three empties on the floor, and
- an empty clip in the magazine of the gun.
RIGHT: A full Mannlicher-Carcano clip.
http://www.thehighroad.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=38240&stc=1&d=1144686926
MY TAKE: The lone nut loser was down to his last four rounds.

Detritus
April 10, 2006, 05:17 PM
Found on the sixth floor, TSBD:
- one live round in the firing chamber of the rifle,
- three empties on the floor, and
- an empty clip in the magazine of the gun.


I'm probably mistaken (esp since i've never fired one), but I was under the impression that the Manlicher-Curcano clip was ejected from/fell free of the bottom of the magazine box when the last round was stripped from it. does it instead stay in place untill a fresh clip of ammo pushes it out??

just wondering

Carl N. Brown
April 10, 2006, 06:12 PM
I have a Mannlicher Carcano Series 1891 Model 1938 made at
Terni Arsenal 1940, as close to the Oswald rifle as I could find.

Half my clips fall out when empty; half stay in the magazine
until pushed out by a fresh clip.

Michael Courtney
April 10, 2006, 09:17 PM
The conspiracy theories are not so much disproven as they remain unproven. The available evidence favors the lone gunman theory, but the greatest case for a lone gunman is the lack of clear evidence of a second gunman. It's sort of like concluding that a revolver was used in a shooting if no brass is found at the site. The conclusion is probably correct, but it would be an exaggeration to claim irrefutability.

My interest is in the acoustic analysis. I've carefully reviewed the three reports analyzing the acoustic evidence, and while the National Academy of Sciences report finds flaws in the earlier acoustic analyses that suggested a second gunman, it should be noted that the NAS report doesn't really provide evidence for the lone gunman theory so much as it points out that the acoustic evidence is really inconclusive.

Some times we just need to live with the fact that a historical question does not have an unambiguous answer in the available evidence. Any time someone invokes Occam's razor, that's a clue that there are considerable puzzle pieces missing. In the history of science, there are many points in time where the application of Occam's razor would have favored a theory that ultimately proved either wrong or incomplete. Questions of natural law will always be more accessible to future progress than questions of history.

Michael Courtney

usp9
April 10, 2006, 09:26 PM
...so many otherwise intelligent folks believe in such things as the JFK conspiracy, UFOs, world peace, an ubiased press, an other such leaps of illogic. P.T. Barnum was a genius.

rmt22
April 10, 2006, 10:29 PM
isn't there a frame that shows the outline of what appears to be a man w/ a gun in the bushes? I think it was on that Nostradamus "Man who saw tomorrow"

also wasn't there some shady characters "cia" types who happened to be in Dallas at this time?

What I find interesting is how upset SOME people get when you say it was not Oswald.

Do you think all Murders are solved?

Do you think WE have never locked up the wrong person? DNA has shown eye-witness testimony to be worthless at times. For people to view the evidence that I have seen and confidently state "CASE CLOSED" shows their own willingness to BELIEVE.

The reality is it is VERY inconclusive. IMO It may be more likely than not it was Oswald alone however it is not clear and convincing, and it definitely is not beyond a reasonable doubt.

Burt Blade
April 10, 2006, 11:01 PM
Predictions:

None of the supposed "JFK conspirators" will ever come forward. Unlike the usual fumbling nitwits from other conspiracies, who cannot seem to keep their mouths shut, _this_ bunch are all perfect observants of the Code of Silence.

However, after the key players and wannabe players and assumed-to-be players are all long dead, secret "confessionals", "diaries", and "death bed testimony" will come forth.

Of course, none of that "confession" will be crass crap intended merely to sell more books, will it? It is safe to believe that people lie to conceal an assassination and cover it up, but people would never lie to sell books or movies, right?

It is truly amazing how the biggest lies have the longest legs.

Eleven Mike
April 11, 2006, 01:43 AM
This thread is getting on my nerves so bad, I am about to reveal the actual truth, just to shut you all up.:neener:

LAK
April 11, 2006, 04:55 AM
Doc Lukens,

Assuming someone mutilated the body with a sharp implement to remove the whole area of skin and flesh, I would assume they would also take the trouble to use some similar toned tissue and blood and plug any obvious hole visible in the skull. ;)

But the difference between the two photos needs more than any superficial explanation; the difference is plainly visible, and significant.

---------------------------------

http://ussliberty.org
http://ssunitedstates.org

LAK
April 11, 2006, 05:31 AM
Carl N BrownBoth timings contradict the memory of Gov. John Connally who claimed he heard a shot, turned to his right, and was hit by the
second shot
And I have film footage of two different interviews with Connally. He changed his story in detail concerning what he did and thought during the first shots.

The "grassy knoll" shot might have been more difficult, but a team of sound experts hired by the gov testified that there was likely one or more shots fired from that direction with a 95% certainty.

But whether the headshot came from the knoll, the curb slot storm drain, or somewhere else up ahead, Kennedy's Secret Service agent driver made sure he remained in the kill zone until the job was finished.

If the headshot had been directed from Oswald's alleged location - some part or parts of Kennedy's face and brains would have been splattered all over Connolly and elsewhere forward of Kennedy's seating position. Not all over the limo's trunk, the motorcycle cops behind etc.

------------------------------------------

http://ussliberty.org
http://ssunitedstates.org

lazarus
April 11, 2006, 11:27 AM
A number of questions about the event, including the bullet hole in the windshield can be seen here.

http://impiousdigest.com/lbj/part1aa.htm

Another "take" on the bullet count and a better photo of the windshield are here.

http://impiousdigest.com/lbj/part1aa.htm


There is entirely too much unanswered to assume that Oswald was the only shooter. In the first link, even Carlos Hathcock comments on Oswald's ability after touring the Book Depository.

Carl N. Brown
April 11, 2006, 12:31 PM
The first conspiracy site I checked showed the bullet
recovered from the MLK murder (Remington rifle, .30-06
softnose bullet) and they compared it to the "pristine" JFK
neck wound, Connally chest wound bullet (Carcano rifle, 6.5 FMJ).

I have fired .30-30 Softnose and 6.5 Carcano FMJ bullets
into the same test media (Water jugs seperated by phonebooks)
at 60 yards: my recovered softnose bullets resembled the MLK
bullet: my recovered 6.5 160grain FMJ Carcano bullet resembled
the so-called "pristine" JFK bullet. Softnose hunting bullets
perform differently from full metal jacket bullets. see post #15.

If that is how the conspiracy sites treat ballistic evidence my
amatuer butt has replicated, how have they treated evidence
in disciplines I have even less expertise in, like acoustics or
photography?

Vern Humphrey
April 11, 2006, 01:53 PM
My interest is in the acoustic analysis. I've carefully reviewed the three reports analyzing the acoustic evidence, and while the National Academy of Sciences report finds flaws in the earlier acoustic analyses that suggested a second gunman, it should be noted that the NAS report doesn't really provide evidence for the lone gunman theory so much as it points out that the acoustic evidence is really inconclusive.

The "acoustic evidence" is a tape from an open mike (a motorcycle cop left his mike keyed.) Sounds on that tape were believed by some to be gunshots. The "experts" analyzed it, put a mike where the cop was supposed to be, fired rifles from various location and concluded with "95% certainty" there was a shot from the grassy knoll.

The National Geographic did a story, and included a recording of the tape as a flexible vynel disk in that edition. A rank amatuer -- not an "acoustic expert" at all, played it and noticed sounds in the background. Replaying it, he heard a transmission by the Dallas County Sheriff, which came through the motorcycle cop's radio by "cross-talk" -- electronic interference.

The Dallas County Sheriff's calls are also recorded, so we KNOW it was him. We also know WHEN he sent the transmission -- almost a half hour after the shooting.

Therefore the sounds on the motorcycle cop's tape CANNOT be the shots that killed Kennedy.

The "experts" who "analyzed" the tape never detected the Dallas County Sheriff's transmission. Some "experts!!":barf:

Michael Courtney
April 11, 2006, 03:29 PM
Therefore the sounds on the motorcycle cop's tape CANNOT be the shots that killed Kennedy.

Only if you pre-suppose that the tape was blank when recording the cross-talk 1/2 hour after the shooting. Like film, magnetic audio tape that is exposed to a recording tape head multiple times will record multiple events. I don't have any particular reason to believe that this is what occurred; I am only pointing out the possibility.

Either way, the audio analysis is inconclusive. The audio does not support a second gunman theory, but neither does it offer any evidence of a single gunman. If the sounds on the tape are gunshots, the uncertainty of the microphone location precludes use of echo analysis to determine shooter location. There are also problems with the time base. If the sounds on the tape are not gunshots (a sole recording of events 1/2 hour later), obviously the tape is useless in supporting or refuting a lone/second gunman theory.

Michael Courtney

Vern Humphrey
April 11, 2006, 03:42 PM
You're missing the most important point -- the "acoustic experts" who "analyzed" the tape completely missed the cross-talk. Some experts!

As for the theory that the tape was used twice, it's against policy -- and against the law. The recordings are made to preserve possible evidence, so they are not reused.

In any case, the burden of proof falls on those who say it was re-used.

Detritus
April 11, 2006, 06:01 PM
On the subject of the "Motorcycle tape"

I have seen in a number of different places, that based on the engine sounds on the tape, at no time during the recording is the bike MOVING, the only engine sounds are those of an engine idling. this in and of it's self, even without the cross talk, refutes the "experts" since their placement of the motorcycle isn't supported by a cycle at a dead stop.

Plus i beleive the Motorcycle officer the tape traced back to has gone on record in the past saying, that he was not where the "experts" say he was. further his personal veiw is that the recording used was a section of tape corresponding to his presence at the hospital AFTER the shooting. since at that point he WOULD have been at idle and btw it roughly corresponds to when the Dallas Co. Sheriff transmission was made.

Michael Courtney
April 11, 2006, 09:25 PM
You're missing the most important point -- the "acoustic experts" who "analyzed" the tape completely missed the cross-talk. Some experts!


Would you offer similar criticism of a DNA expert that missed bacterial DNA in a sample? (Forensic DNA analysis almost never reveals bacterial DNA.)

Would you offer similar criticism of a forensic chemist who missed trace quantities of arsenic when identifying a batch of drugs? (Drug analysis almost never reveals heavy metals.)

So why criticize a ballistic analysis for missing the significance of a human voice in the ballistic analysis of an audio tape? In forensic science, experts are tasked to answer specific questions, such as “Are there gun shots on this recording?” and “Can the location of the gun shots be determined via echo analysis?”

Investigating the significance of an easily discernable human voice in a shooting audio is not the task of a ballistic or acoustic analyst. This requires broader investigation (comparing the statements on audio with witness accounts) than the typical tasks of the crime lab ballistics and acoustic experts. The potential significance of easily discernable human voices is as different an acoustic task as studying bacterial DNA is to an expert tasked with an analysis of human DNA. Once an investigator with broader responsibility suggests some significance in a human voice, the audio analyst can determine the identity of the speaker (given available exlemplars), but unless there is a suggestion of relevance, an audio analysis of a shooting event won’t be considering human voices any more than a drug analysis is looking for heavy metal contamination.


As for the theory that the tape was used twice, it's against policy -- and against the law. The recordings are made to preserve possible evidence, so they are not reused.


Unless I’ve personally examined the evidence, I prefer to keep an open mind.

Your view has some unsupported presuppositions:

1) Cross-talk is overwhelmingly more likely than overdubbing.

2) Accurate recollection of timing of spoken words.

I’ve got too much experience with government employees to believe that the existence of a policy constitutes overwhelming evidence that the policy was followed. How many law enforcement personnel perfectly followed policy in the ½ hour after the assassination of JFK? So how can one assert that a policy against reusing a tape was perfectly followed in perhaps the most chaotic event of the second half of the 20th century?

I’ve been a sound man for a local church for many years now, and with our current equipment, overdubbing is at least as likely as cross-talk in audio recordings. Without actually examining the original equipment that captured the JFK audio, it is hard to be specific regarding the relative probability of cross-talk and overdubbing, but in most systems of that era, overdubbing simply requires a human error that is relatively easy to make.

A forensic scientist should consider the clear physical evidence without being biased by policies or recollections which may or may not accurately represent the events.


In any case, the burden of proof falls on those who say it was re-used.

Given ample audio system bandwidth, signal to noise ratio, and dynamic range, supersonic projectile signatures can be quite conclusive and distinct and could provide unambiguous evidence of shooting events, especially at projectile velocities above 1600 FPS. There are modern acoustic systems available for immediately recognizing gunshots by their unique acoustic signature. If there are distinguishable and unique gunshot signatures on the JFK audio recording, one does not need additional evidence that the time represented on the tape was the time of the assassination.

Unambiguous acoustic evidence of a gunshot is much more compelling than eyewitness accounts. However, the audio record may or may not be of sufficient quality to be certain of the gunshots and their location. Not having analyzed the audio myself, I would reserve judgment, but maintain an open mind regarding the possibilities.

Our research group is working on new methods in acoustic analysis of shooting events incorporating improved echo analysis, analysis of the target strike, resonance methods, closed orbit theory, and frequency dependent reverberation analysis. These new methods will be able to say a lot more about shooting events captured on modern audio equipment, and perhaps even shed light on historical shooting events such as the JFK assassination and Kent State.

Michael Courtney

JohnKSa
April 11, 2006, 10:58 PM
A careful reconstruction of the scene based on photographs and movies conclusively showed that the motorcycle in question was not where it needed to be to support the acoustic expert's original assessment of the shot location. And the officer riding the motorcycle has repeatedly asserted that his radio was working perfectly and that the mike was not stuck open.

The evidence against the acoustical analysis is quite substantial at this point. The scene reconstruction is airtight and invalidates the original evaluation of the recording.

1. Reconstruction shows that the motorcycle was not placed as required for the assessment to be valid.
2. Officer immediately denied and continues to maintain that his mike was not stuck open.
3. Acoustic evidence suggests that the motorcycle was not moving since the engine remained at idle.
4. Crosstalk suggests that the recording was not made at the time of the shooting. While the recording media may have been overdubbed, it is highly unlikely that it would have been overdubbed immediately--particularly on the day of a presidential visit after an assassination attempt just took place.

At the VERY least, a new assessment and analysis needs to be performed given that it has been proven that the motorcycle was not placed as previously thought.

Fire4Effect
April 11, 2006, 11:26 PM
:banghead: I wasn't alive then... I don't care.

R.W.Dale
April 11, 2006, 11:44 PM
I wasn't alive then... I don't care.

BINGO! I care about the Kennedy assination about as much as I care about McKinley's.

Heck he wasn't even a very good president. After all he did darn near almost got us all nuked, Through sheer ignorance I might add.
Then there is that whole Vietnam debacle. You can lay the beginnings of that squarley at his feet to.

Detritus
April 12, 2006, 01:15 AM
Then there is that whole Vietnam debacle. You can lay the beginnings of that squarley at his feet to.

untrue

actually Eisenhower was the first to send US advisors to S. Vietnam after the french left.

Btw there is some evidence that had Kennedy not been assassinated, the Vietnam war as an "American War" (direct major US ground troop involvement) would not have happened. LBJ is who made Vietnam into a major US military endevor.

and in truth the road that lead to a US involvment in southeast asia started at the end of WW1! when the US delegation at Versailles chose to ignore the petition of "a group of vietnamese patriots" for equal rights for the vietnamese in indochina. in other words in 1918 we snubbed the man who would be Ho Chi Minh, and led him to instead seek his guidance, and support from a power/political system we the US feared.

Doc Lukens
April 12, 2006, 01:24 AM
jerkface11 wrote:
> Isn't the real question "Why did Ruby shoot Oswald"?

After 9-11-01, some guy in Phoenix shot an East Indian gas station owner because he thought the guy was Arab. It was a target of opportunity for one very pi$$ed off dude. Ruby just happened to have an incredible opportunity, and he took it.

Ruby was known to carry a gun, was known at the Dallas PD, so easily entered the garage, and just happened to show up late, and the transfer of Oswald happened late. The transfer was supposed to happen at 11:00, but was delayed - and Ruby arrived at about 11:25 - TOO LATE if the transfer had happened on time. Add the Dallas detectives who "stalled" to the list of conspirators?

Either that, or the East Indian gas station owner was directly involved in al queda's plot, and to keep him quiet, this alledged super patriot, who actually worked for Bin Laden was used to silence him. Right. Who here WOULDN'T take a shot at Bin Laden if we had the opportunity? Again, Ruby just happened to have an incredible opportunity, and he took it.

GrammatonCleric
April 12, 2006, 04:03 AM
I'm not too happy with Teddy K either, but your comment was a little over the top. Certainly not how we'd like to have The High Road represented.

Regards,
Your friendly neighborhood 1911 Tuner

280PLUS
April 12, 2006, 07:53 AM
Oswald?

Ruby?

All this time I thought it was Mr. Mustard in the Library with a billyclub!

Hmphhh, I gotta get out more...

Michael Courtney
April 12, 2006, 08:16 AM
A careful reconstruction of the scene based on photographs and movies conclusively showed that the motorcycle in question was not where it needed to be to support the acoustic expert's original assessment of the shot location. And the officer riding the motorcycle has repeatedly asserted that his radio was working perfectly and that the mike was not stuck open.

The evidence against the acoustical analysis is quite substantial at this point. The scene reconstruction is airtight and invalidates the original evaluation of the recording.

1. Reconstruction shows that the motorcycle was not placed as required for the assessment to be valid.
2. Officer immediately denied and continues to maintain that his mike was not stuck open.
3. Acoustic evidence suggests that the motorcycle was not moving since the engine remained at idle.
4. Crosstalk suggests that the recording was not made at the time of the shooting. While the recording media may have been overdubbed, it is highly unlikely that it would have been overdubbed immediately--particularly on the day of a presidential visit after an assassination attempt just took place.

At the VERY least, a new assessment and analysis needs to be performed given that it has been proven that the motorcycle was not placed as previously thought.

I agree, the original acoustic analysis suggesting a grassy knoll shooter is flawed. My points above are that if the audio contains the unique acoustic signature of the gun shots, the possibility remains for future analysis. However, the unknown location of the open microphone complicates the analysis tremendously, as does the uncertainty of the time base.

There is nothing in the NAS acoustic analysis that indicates that all the shots came from the book depository. As I have said before, the current status of the acoustic analysis of the event is inconclusive, neither supporting a lone gunman theory nor supporting a second gunman theory.

Michael Courtney

LAK
April 12, 2006, 08:23 AM
There is a distinct difference between the audio sound signature of gunshots and their reverberations and "cross talk". The idea that the gov appointed experts did an amateur job because their findings contradict the govs' official fable is an interesting idea, but the official fable ignores, omits or distorts so much else it is ridiculous.

National Geographic is a, shall we say, publication with an agenda not that far removed - if at all - from those who had and continue to hold the status quo.

The fact is, the bullet that we are led to believe struck Kennedy in the back of the head had no exit wound. That's some magic bullet; unless we are to believe it spent itself bouncing around the inside of Kennedy's skull. Perhaps they "lost" it along with what was left of Kennedy's brain ;)

--------------------------------------

http://ussliberty.org
http://ssunitedstates.org

usp9
April 12, 2006, 09:07 AM
LAK said:
"There is a distinct difference between the audio sound signature of gunshots and their reverberations and "cross talk". The idea that the gov appointed experts did an amateur job because their findings contradict the govs' official fable is an interesting idea, but the official fable ignores, omits or distorts so much else it is ridiculous.

National Geographic is a, shall we say, publication with an agenda not that far removed - if at all - from those who had and continue to hold the status quo.

The fact is, the bullet that we are led to believe struck Kennedy in the back of the head had no exit wound. That's some magic bullet; unless we are to believe it spent itself bouncing around the inside of Kennedy's skull. Perhaps they "lost" it along with what was left of Kennedy's brain"


----------------------------------------
----------------------------------------

What exacly is the agenda of the National Geographic Society? My wife has worked there for thirty years and had a good laugh at your comment. To anyone who knows, that was a really absurd statement.

Kennedy's brain is not lost, a fact "lost" on the grossly misinformed conspiracy buffs (CBs). You can lead a CB to knowledge, but you can't make them think.:)

LAK
April 12, 2006, 09:32 AM
National Geographic? Basically, they worship at the feet of the U.N. and all things connected. Nearly always excellent to superb photography, some excellent natural history content etc. But their geo-political article content rarely if ever offends the sensibilities of the global villagers, and their journalism concerning some longstanding trouble spots in the world ignore or omit what is both common knowledge and historically recorded.

And on the subject of Kennedy; perhaps you can then tell us coincidence buffs then where the exit wound was on Kennedy's face. The bullet path, from the entrance at the back to where it exits the brain at the front will indicate this clearly. We can then pull up the autopsy photos and see the gaping exit hole there that we have missed all these years.

Let me guess; it was his open mouth - hence no visible exit wound ;)

--------------------------------------

http://ussliberty.org
http://ssunitedstates.org

TexasRifleman
April 12, 2006, 09:45 AM
Let me guess; it was his open mouth - hence no visible exit wound

Well, a politician with an open mouth would certainly be plausible. :evil:

Vern Humphrey
April 12, 2006, 11:09 AM
I have seen in a number of different places, that based on the engine sounds on the tape, at no time during the recording is the bike MOVING, the only engine sounds are those of an engine idling. this in and of it's self, even without the cross talk, refutes the "experts" since their placement of the motorcycle isn't supported by a cycle at a dead stop.

Plus i beleive the Motorcycle officer the tape traced back to has gone on record in the past saying, that he was not where the "experts" say he was. further his personal veiw is that the recording used was a section of tape corresponding to his presence at the hospital AFTER the shooting. since at that point he WOULD have been at idle and btw it roughly corresponds to when the Dallas Co. Sheriff transmission was made.

All true. The "acoustic evidence" requires a True Believer who is willing to ignore all the evidence against this tape actually recording the shots.

iocane
April 12, 2006, 03:26 PM
Why did Ruby shoot oswald. Heres a possibility, Oswald had spent years in the USSR, was a ardent communist. If he had lived to testify at his own trial he would have been doing some loud ranting about the evils of capitalism. So kill oswald no world war three.

LAK
April 13, 2006, 05:10 AM
Jack Ruby worked for Richard Nixon in 1947 when Nixon was a Senator. When Nixon was forced to resign as President, it was not simply "because of the Watergate scandal", but because of his obstruction of the FBI investigation into E. Howard Hunt, one of Nixon's longtime associates.

Hunt had a very personal interest in the actual break-in, and unfortunately for him, other copies of his main concern - some very incriminating photographs - broke as part of a news story at a later time, and in a subsequent lawsuit.

------------------------------------------------

http://ussliberty.org
http://ssunitedstates.org

capnrik
April 16, 2006, 01:05 PM
Upon its release in 1964, all files of the Warren Commission were sealed away from public view for 75 years (until 2039) by executive order of President Lyndon B. Johnson.

I was only eleven years old in 1964, and so I didn't understand the reasons for that order.

Now, I'm 53 years old, and I still don't understand the reason.

If the Warren Commission decided that there was one lone gunman, how come my son gets to see the files, and I don't? :confused:

el44vaquero
April 16, 2006, 01:12 PM
Interesting theory. Jane Fonda really did it (dressed as the Easter Bunny).

Vern Humphrey
April 16, 2006, 05:00 PM
Upon its release in 1964, all files of the Warren Commission were sealed away from public view for 75 years (until 2039) by executive order of President Lyndon B. Johnson.

I was only eleven years old in 1964, and so I didn't understand the reasons for that order.

Now, I'm 53 years old, and I still don't understand the reason.

If the Warren Commission decided that there was one lone gunman, how come my son gets to see the files, and I don't?

By no means all of the Warren Commission files are closed to the public -- and those that are closed are open to serious investigators.

Files like that are closed for two reasons -- first of all, because many people are mentioned, most of whom are perfectly innocent, but all sorts of embarrassing details of their lives were reviewed in detail. Would you like to have a file opened that says your father was involved in a homosexual relationship -- based on rumors?

Secondly, the Kennedy family does have a right to privacy.

To take an example, there are detailed drawings and photographs of Kennedy's wounds. The family does not want them made public. However, a decade or so ago, the doctors who examined Kennedy in Dallas were allowed into a room where they could examine these drawings and photographs, and they came out saying that the drawings and photographs were correct. One of the doctors, after seeing this evidence, said that his written statements soon afterwards were in error.

JohnKSa
April 16, 2006, 05:54 PM
Jack Ruby worked for Richard Nixon in 1947 when Nixon was a Senator.Gonna need a link or citation for that one...

This wouldn't be related to the 1947 FBI document "discovered" in 1975 by an unnamed "scholar", would it? The one that the FBI claims is a fake?

I particularly like the part about how a "scholar" found the document. No name, no other information--just a "scholar"...

LAK
April 17, 2006, 04:39 AM
JohnKSa,

I don't have a link for it on the web as that is not from where I saw it; and it may have been 1975 - or later. There were actually several memos/items related to the Kennedy murder that caused a storm when they surfaced. This is just one of them.

As far the "scholar" is concerned, I do not know whether he or she was a "scholar" or not.

Vern Humphrey,

I'd almost bet the farm that the people in and surrounding the circle of friends that murdered John F Kennedy have enough on Edward to put him out of politics for good, if not in prison. No wonder "the Kennedy family" doesn't want certain material released - and no wonder Edward is such a co-operative figure in the political world.

No doubt some people involved might not want some embarrassing material released for the sake of their personal privacy etc. But that does not excuse all the other material being held back. It can't all be "personal" matters now can it? ;)

-------------------------------------------------------

http://ussliberty.org
http://ssunitedstates.org

JohnBT
April 17, 2006, 08:51 AM
http://crimemagazine.com/03/richardnixon,1014.htm

Paragraph 15 among others gives some of the purported Nixon/Ruby history.

John

Eleven Mike
April 17, 2006, 09:12 AM
Gonna need a link or citation for that one...

I don't have a link for it on the web as that is not from where I saw it; and it may have been 1975 - or later. There were actually several memos/items related to the Kennedy murder that caused a storm when they surfaced. This is just one of them.

As far the "scholar" is concerned, I do not know whether he or she was a "scholar" or not.

So can you cite a source or not?

JohnKSa
April 18, 2006, 12:17 AM
LAK,

I'm not trying to rag on you, but this is the kind of "evidence" that has kept the JFK conspiracy alive.

An unnamed scholar comes up with a document that the source of the alleged document claims is fake. Since the document was supposedly found 30 years ago and the scholar who found it is unnamed, it's impossible to track it down. It MIGHT be true, but there's absolutely no way to check it out.

I've spent a lot of time tracking things like that down only to find there's absolutely no basis in fact, or to find that it's a total dead end. No one can confirm or deny, no one has a copy of the alleged document, no one knows who allegedly found the document, etc. Most of this kind of stuff reads like a typical urban legend/web myth--lots of meaningless details but a very careful omission of any specific information that would allow someone to actually research it carefully.

Here's the quote from the link provided by JohnBTA 1947 memo, found in 1975 by a scholar going through a pile of recently released FBI documents, supports Giancana's contention. In the memo, addressed to a congressional committee investigating organized crime, an FBI assistant states: "It is my sworn testimony that one Jack Rubenstein of Chicago ... is performing information functions for the staff of Congressman Richard Nixon, Republican of California. It is requested Rubenstein not be called for open testimony in the aforementioned hearings." (Later in 1947, Rubenstein moved to Dallas and shortened his last name.) The FBI subsequently called the memo a fake, but the reference service Facts on File considers it authentic.Why would the FBI deny a 30 year old passing connection between Nixon and Ruby discovered over a decade after the assassination? Why doesn't the scholar have a name? None of it makes any sense, and worse, there's a convenient omission of anything that would let one track it down. Where do you start? By calling the FBI and asking for a copy of a 1947 memo that they claimed was fake in 1975?

Shawn Dodson
April 18, 2006, 01:03 AM
Don't know if this link has already be posted, but here goes:

http://www.jfklancer.com/aphotos.html

If you look closely enough you can see the 6.5mm Carcano bullet entrance wound in the back of JFK's head.

roo_ster
April 18, 2006, 01:22 AM
...this is the kind of "evidence" that has kept the JFK conspiracy alive.
D@mn skippy.

If folks would learn a tiny bit about marksmanship & actually went to the book depository, 75% of the myths that start with, "LHO could never have made the shots in that bit of time," fall apart.

If folks would call "Bullshinola" whenever one of these pieces of unconfirmable "evidence" pops up, another 20% of the myths would dissipate into the ether.


Shawn Dodson:
Whenever I see those photos I get hoppin' mad. All these conspiracy book writers likely know better, but they are willing to revel in that man's blood to win a buck off the yahoos.

Disgusting.

JohnKSa
April 18, 2006, 01:34 AM
Shawn,

What's amazing is that, in spite of the clear color picture of a bullet entry hole in the back of his head just down the page aways they're blathering about the "entry wound in the temple". Which is OBVIOUSLY an exit wound. One of the first things you learn about bullet wounds in the skull is: "entry little, exit big". It's amazing for me to see how this lasted as long as it has. The truth of it is that people like the conspiracy enough that they refuse to invest any real time and effort into actually researching it.

And the photo with the bullet entry wound is labelled as referring to damage above the hairline. The "damage" is some sort of debris adhering to his hair--which should have been painfully obvious since it's not visible in the pictures of the back wound. The "damage" is only visible in the three close-up head shots. The "damage" either fell off before the other photos or stuck on there after the other photos were taken (don't know the order they were taken.)

The entry wound to the back of the head is also visible at the very bottom of the B&W photo.

I've included attachments with the bullet hole circled to make it more obvious, but you can look at the photos on the website Shawn linked to see the original pictures.

Not trying to be gross, and I apologize in advance for the graphic description, but in case it's lost on the viewers, the person holding the head up for the photograph (gloved hand) is holding the head up by putting his fingers in the EXIT wound and holding the skull up from the inside.

LAK
April 18, 2006, 05:01 AM
JohnKSaWhy would the FBI deny a 30 year old passing connection between Nixon and Ruby discovered over a decade after the assassination? Why doesn't the scholar have a name? None of it makes any sense, and worse, there's a convenient omission of anything that would let one track it down. Where do you start? By calling the FBI and asking for a copy of a 1947 memo that they claimed was fake in 1975?

I have it on a disk "JFK II". The reasons the FBI might deny the document is original are many. Who, which FBI person by name "denied it"?

Tracking it down is a good idea. The problem with our government, agencies and leadership is that they studiously avoid any objective route to conclusions.

The connections between people like Jack Ruby seem to be more than "passing".

As far as the "entrance" and "exit" wounds go, there is testimony by more than a few people involved that the large exit wound was on the back, slightly right, of the head. This is consistant with what can be seen in the Zapruder film where Kennedy's scalp pieces and brains are thrown all over the back of the limo and beyond. Jackie can be seen crawling out onto the trunk and picking some of these up and attempting to place them "back on" the back of his head.

Had the exit wound been located on the front of the head/face, the downward angle of the shot claimed would indicate an exit wound somewhere in the middle of his face. In any case; skin, bone, cartilege, blood and brain matter would have been splattered all over Connolly and the driver, and front seating area and windshield. The photographs of Kennedy lying flat on his back would have clearly shown a large ragged exit wound somewhere on his face.

Unless, this photo (or one of them) has been doctored of course. But the several named parties involved who handled or saw the wounds firsthand confirm the large exit wound at the back. These people have left their testimony on film. They could all be lying of course; but for what purpose? A conspiracy to create confusion and distrust decades later?

The most astounding aspect to me is the behavior of the Secret Service Agent driver and the other Agent in the front seat. While rifle shots are still ringing out and Kenndy is clutching his throat, the driver keeps turning around and staring at him, and the other glancing around as well. It is not until Kennedy's brains went flying that he put his foot on the gas. All he did basically was keep Kennedy in the kill zone until the job was finished.

----------------------------------------------

http://ussliberty.org
http://ssunitedstates.org

Amadeus
April 18, 2006, 05:07 AM
Kennedy shot himself! :neener:

rayra
April 18, 2006, 05:48 AM
"Kennedy shot himself!"


heh. With a Glock. It was the resulting kaboom that struck Gov Connelly.

Shawn Dodson
April 18, 2006, 03:43 PM
What's amazing is that, in spite of the clear color picture of a bullet entry hole in the back of his head just down the page aways they're blathering about the "entry wound in the temple". Which is OBVIOUSLY an exit wound. Thanks for pointing this out. Although I haven't studied the web site in any great detail other than to examine the photos, I reckon I should've put a disclaimer in my post that the link was provided merely for the photo, not for any commentary on the page. I apologize for any misunderstanding.

Perhaps the best book about the JFK assassination is John K. Lattimer's Kennedy and Lincoln: Medical and Ballistic Comparisons of their Assassinations. Unfortunately it's out of print, but used copies are available.

Although the article in the link below deals with a different topic, it presents an extract Lattimer wrote for Wound Ballistics Review (“Differences in the Wounding Behavior of the Two Bullets that Struck President Kennedy; An Experimental Study.” (John K. Lattimer, M.D., Sc.D., Jon K. Lattimer, M.D., et. al., Wound Ballistics Review, 2(2): 1995; 13-37), in which he explains the mechanics of JFK's head wound. See http://www.firearmstactical.com/tacticalbriefs/2006/04/03/0604-03a.htm (scoll down to almost the end of the web page).

ctdonath
April 18, 2006, 07:11 PM
As far as the "entrance" and "exit" wounds go, there is testimony by more than a few people involved that the large exit wound was on the back, slightly right, of the head.

Photos, indicated prior, clearly show the large exit was more front/top/right.

The entry wound is not obvious, for plain reasons. The marked site indicated prior is consistent with the standard scenario.

Too many conspiracy theorists seem to think the entry, exit & path involve going straight thru the center of the skull with holes on opposite sides - not recognizing that less central and less uniform paths are more likely in the real world.

This is consistant with what can be seen in the Zapruder film where Kennedy's scalp pieces and brains are thrown all over the back of the limo and beyond. Jackie can be seen crawling out onto the trunk and picking some of these up and attempting to place them "back on" the back of his head.Is she really retrieving pieces from the back? or, in freaking out, did she first try crawling off the back, then return to hold what's left of his head together? Remember: being absolutely shocked & distraught, nothing she did in those few seconds was necessarily rational in any way.

Had the exit wound been located on the front of the head/face, The exit wound location is plain from the photos. Cope.

Unless, this photo (or one of them) has been doctored of course.Maybe the whole thing was staged, and he's lounging in Bermuda with Elvis.

Such claims ("the photos were doctored", etc.) are not the realm of sane rational analysis - they are the realm of hysteria and blind faith in fantasies, fueled by a need for justification, no matter how wild or complicated.

He was shot in the head. The shooter was at a reasonable distance and fired at a reasonable rate with reasonable accuracy for someone reasonably well practiced. The entry and exit wounds are reasonably consistent with the scenario and the natural complexities of pushing a bullet through someone's skull at high speed. Jackie's behavior is reasonably consistent with someone whose husband has just been shot dead. Other factors also line up reasonably; unexplainable precise factors are far more a matter of natural chaos than of deliberate conspiracy.

These people have left their testimony on film. They could all be lying of course;More like they gave reasonable descriptions of what they saw, which gets mutated as conspiracy theorists play the "telephone game". Given the photos, the mess can easily be described as "back of the head", as it wasn't on his face.

The most astounding aspect to me is the behavior of the Secret Service Agent driver and the other Agent in the front seat. While rifle shots are still ringing out and Kenndy is clutching his throat, the driver keeps turning around and staring at him, and the other glancing around as well.They were grasping the situation. It only lasted a few seconds, which is what it took for them to deal with their cognitive dissonance induced by their healthy happy VIP suddenly splattering innards for no expected or apparent reason.

Detritus
April 18, 2006, 08:21 PM
Kennedy shot himself!

Has someone been watching too much Red Dwarf...... :evil:

Note: for those who have never seen or heard of it, Red Dwarf is a British Sci-fi comedy series that is about as irreverent, farcical, and intentionally twistedly bizzare as such things can be.

in one episode the characters have a time machine, and decide to go find JFK, spill the beans to him about Dallas, and kennedy is convincd/decides to be the shooter on the grassy knoll.

JohnKSa
April 19, 2006, 12:23 AM
LAK,

Exit/entrance wounds. All you gotta do is look at the pictures Shawn linked to. The large exit wound is clearly in the front. The small entrance wound is clearly in the back.

Debris ending up on the back of the car. The car was moving. The debris cloud goes up, the car moves underneath the cloud, stuff rains all over. Front, back, off the car, etc.Who, which FBI person by name "denied it"?I'll tell you when you tell me the name of the "unnamed scholar" who discovered it. ;) Besides, the very people claiming the memo is genuine are the same ones acknowledging that the FBI says it's fake. Are you saying I should take them at their word when they say the memo is good but doubt them when they say the FBI says it's fake? That doesn't make sense. When the very people touting a piece of evidence admit that the originators claim it's a fake, that's not much of a confidence builder.

There's a lot of real evidence that can be traced to its origin without having to pass through "unnamed scholars" etc. I spent a lot of time tracking down stuff like that over the years but now, unless the evidence is compelling and has a reasonable provenance, I won't waste my time on it. The memo originator says it's fake, the memo finder didn't have enough confidence to attach his name to it--that doesn't sound like evidence, that sounds like something someone typed up in his spare time to muddy the water. AND, even if the memo were true, it doesn't prove anything. Even if one were to accept it as true, the only thing it would prove is that there was possibly some contact between Nixon's staff and Ruby 30 years before the assassination. So even if you could prove it's true, it's worth very little in terms of actually proving anything.

The conspiracy buffs want people to ignore hard evidence (like the autopsy photos, scientific reconstructions, etc.) and embrace shaky evidence like fake memos found by anonymous people. I did that for awhile but it finally got to the point where it wasn't possible any longer unless I was willing to be dishonest with myself.

JohnKSa
April 19, 2006, 12:41 AM
Here's the text from the link Shawn mentioned--it's definitely worth the read.Extract from “Differences in the Wounding Behavior of the Two Bullets that Struck President Kennedy; An Experimental Study.” (John K. Lattimer, M.D., Sc.D., Jon K. Lattimer, M.D., et. al., Wound Ballistics Review, 2(2): 1995; 13-37):
…Bullet (No. WC 567-569) which struck the President on the back of the head, broke up because of the hardness of the skull, with the immediate transition into the soft tissues of the brain (Fig 31 & 32).

The greatly increased surface area of the broken bullet and its fragments caused a large temporary cavity to occur in the semi-fluid brain, which, being confined in the cranial vault exploded upward and forward, out the huge wound of exit on the front-right of the skull caused by diverging bullet fragments. Our replications demonstrated this “upward and forward” movement of the skull fragments and brain tissue (Fig. 25).

The lead core and gilding metal jacket separated on contact with the skull, (Fig. 26) leaving a 6.5mm fragment sheared off by the sharp edge of the bone at the point of impact. The entry wound on the inside of the skull showed typical “beveling” of the inner end of the skull wound, where the hole was much larger than that of the outer end of the wound, as is characteristic of wound-of-entrance in bone. The broken bullet scattered dozens of tiny fragments of lead along the track of the bullet from back to front through the brain (Fig 27). Fragments several millimeters in diameter were embedded in the inner surface of the front side of the skull, adjacent to the wound track (Fig 28 AP & LAT). All the fragments of lead removed from the President’s head and found on the floor of the Presidential automobile, matched this bullet and not bullet 399. There were lead fragments from 2 bullets and 2 bullets only, by neutron activation analysis.

A “beveling” of the wound of exit on the front of the skull was also observed and 3 segments of skull could be seen in the Zapruder movie, spiraling upward and forward away from the head, with a cloud of exploding brain substance, immediately after impact, just as in our experimental replications (Fig 25). These flew 40 feet in the air and were recovered from the pavement and infield, later.

Almost the entire right hemisphere of the brain was removed by the bullet (Fig 28 A&B, 29 A&B, 30). This is exactly what our test bullets did when we replicated the skull and brain wounds on our experimental model. Fragmentation of our skull was extensive in every case (Fig 31, 32) with upward and forward ejection of brain material and skull fragments, just as shown in the Zapruder movie in frame 313 and subsequent frames (Fig 25). This difference in reaction after impact on bone, in contrast to the impact on soft tissues was consistent. It happened dependably in our replication (Fig 25).

Backward retro-recoil of the skulls, towards the gun, then occurred in our simulations, just as in JFK’s case….Noting retro-recoil in simulations/reconstructions is quite definitive as "back and to the left" is one of the last battle-cries of the stubborn holdouts.

Also look at the paragraph where they mention pieces going 40 feet into the air. That should be ample explanation for stuff falling ANYWHERE in the reasonably near vicinity of the impact. Heck, there were probably small pieces still falling after the car went into the underpass.

wheelgunkid
April 19, 2006, 03:29 AM
I also saw the program Stormruger mentioned, and I too think Oswald acted on his own. I just don't buy all of these conspiracy theories. I think most folks give our government agencies, etc way too much credit. Alot of em just aren't as bright as they're made out to be.
Look how the naval guys ignored the Japanese planes coming in on Pearl Harbor. Pure human error. Yet people think there was some conspiracy by Roosevelt to allow it to happen. 9/11. People think the government knew the WTC would be attacked. I think it's nonsense. It was just humans not doing their jobs because we're by nature lazy and tend to cut corners whenever we can. Same with Oswald. I think he killed JFK on his own. Now perhaps someone put him up to it. However, I don't think there were any other shooters in downtown Dallas that day.

LAK
April 19, 2006, 04:10 AM
ctdonathPhotos, indicated prior, clearly show the large exit was more front/top/right.

The entry wound is not obvious, for plain reasons. The marked site indicated prior is consistent with the standard scenario
You are referring - must be referring, because it is not anywhere else in the photos - to the piece of scalp that appears to be lifted on the right side of the head above the right ear and temple.
Too many conspiracy theorists seem to think the entry, exit & path involve going straight thru the center of the skull with holes on opposite sides - not recognizing that less central and less uniform paths are more likely in the real world.
I would counter that even a standard jacketed roundnose military c.160 grain 6.5mm bullet would have entered and plowed through the brain on a relatively stable path.

For a magical coincidence theorist, you are apparently not that well up on how fully jacketed high sectional density roundnose bullets at moderate velocity generally behave in this regard. Although likely to have somewhat thinner jackets than their roundnose hunting bullet counterparts, a 6.5mm bullet of this weight has among the highest sectional density to be found. While the gov has not given us the privilege of knowing in detail is the precise contruction specifications of the alleged bullet(s). Walter D M Bell used a 6.5x54mm with full jacket roundnose bullets to drill elephant skulls for brain shots. While he does write that they were "prone to bending", he does not say it "happened all the time", and it is recorded that he killed many elephants this way. An elephant's skull is just a "tad" thicker thicker than any human head in total.

We can speculate that the nose of the bullet would or might have deformed some - but that it made an abrupt turn in brain tissue is stretching things just a tad too much. ;)
Is she really retrieving pieces from the back? or, in freaking out, did she first try crawling off the back, then return to hold what's left of his head together? Remember: being absolutely shocked & distraught, nothing she did in those few seconds was necessarily rational in any way.
That is what she appears to be doing; and I have seen film clear enough that she is definately picking up what are definately pieces of something from the trunk lid and placing them against the back of his head.

Yes, she was in shock, And that is no doubt why she was doing what she is seen to be doing.
Such claims ("the photos were doctored", etc.) are not the realm of sane rational analysis - they are the realm of hysteria and blind faith in fantasies, fueled by a need for justification, no matter how wild or complicated.
This ascribes to a great deal of trust in anything produced in a film media. In fact blind faith sums your point of view up very well indeed.
More like they gave reasonable descriptions of what they saw, which gets mutated as conspiracy theorists play the "telephone game". Given the photos, the mess can easily be described as "back of the head", as it wasn't on his face.
Um, no. These people are on film and are making very clear statements. Also on film is the Whitehouse spokesman who when addressing the press pointed to his right forehead at the hairline and states that it was "a bullet to the brain".

In Peter Jennings' "debunking" piece a few years ago, the same clip is shown with that particular indication and statement edited out. I have both on a disk.
They were grasping the situation. It only lasted a few seconds, which is what it took for them to deal with their cognitive dissonance induced by their healthy happy VIP suddenly splattering innards for no expected or apparent reason.
You are apparently under the notion that the U.S. Secret Service and training and SOPs were somehow undeveloped and inadequate prior to the Kennedy assassination.

Even Connolly, who had no training in this regard at all, has stated, on camera (yes, I have this one as well) that at the first shot he knew what it was, and that it must be an assassination attempt.

It was somewhat more than a few seconds. The driver looks around and stares at Kennedy more than once, as does his colleague, while he is grasping his throat. How much blood do you think might have been apparent from the throat wound - be it entrance or exit - on Kennedy's hands and shirt front?

So rifle shots are ringing out, the President is grasping his bloodied throat, and bullets striking the limo windshield and frame. Connolly knew what was going on at the first shot - but two U.S. Secret Service agents trained and handpicked for a particular task in a motorcade were still collating, and only "grasped" what was going on when the brains went flying.

Right. ;)

---------------------------------------

http://ussliberty.org
http://ssunitedstates.org

LAK
April 19, 2006, 04:36 AM
JohnKSaExit/entrance wounds. All you gotta do is look at the pictures Shawn linked to. The large exit wound is clearly in the front. The small entrance wound is clearly in the back.
You also must be referring to the flap of scalp visible on the upper right side of Kennedy's head. There is no exit wound - not even a blemish - on the front of Kennedy's head.
Debris ending up on the back of the car. The car was moving. The debris cloud goes up, the car moves underneath the cloud, stuff rains all over. Front, back, off the car, etc.
The car was drifting along very slowly during all this. Having ridden motocycles for a great many years I can say from experience that at such low speeds there is not much of a draft. Not enough to send brain chunks, scalp and skull pieces up into the air and over everyones' heads. In an open limo with a sustantial windshield your theory is not reasonable. Unless of course there was a really strong gusting headwind involved - the majority of the debris should have been sprayed out along the bullet path on exit. The explosion of debris under the pressure momentarily built up within the skull would have had it's greatest release along and around the bullet exit path. Connolly should have been covered with it.
I'll tell you when you tell me the name of the "unnamed scholar" who discovered it. Besides, the very people claiming the memo is genuine are the same ones acknowledging that the FBI says it's fake. Are you saying I should take them at their word when they say the memo is good but doubt them when they say the FBI says it's fake? That doesn't make sense. When the very people touting a piece of evidence admit that the originators claim it's a fake, that's not much of a confidence builder.
It is interesting that a certain piece of paper that merely amounted to an alleged behavioral problem concerning the current President while in the military was given the closest scrutiny, about to the level of a forensic examination. While one allegedly connected to the murder of another President is rather easily discounted on the words of a gov spokesman.

Interesting compartmentalization.
There's a lot of real evidence that can be traced to its origin without having to pass through "unnamed scholars" etc. I spent a lot of time tracking down stuff like that over the years but now, unless the evidence is compelling and has a reasonable provenance, I won't waste my time on it. The memo originator says it's fake, the memo finder didn't have enough confidence to attach his name to it--that doesn't sound like evidence, that sounds like something someone typed up in his spare time to muddy the water. AND, even if the memo were true, it doesn't prove anything. Even if one were to accept it as true, the only thing it would prove is that there was possibly some contact between Nixon's staff and Ruby 30 years before the assassination. So even if you could prove it's true, it's worth very little in terms of actually proving anything.
Well, I have no doubt a great number of people can be persuaded to say alot of things if the right pressure is exerted. I find it bizarre though that if someone was going to go through the trouble of faking such a document pertaining to this particular subject matter that they would have invented a connection between Ruby and Nixon of all people.

As far as shakey, the Oswald "lone nut" theory is about as shakey as it gets.

----------------------------------------------

http://ussliberty.org
http://ssunitedstates.org

JohnKSa
April 19, 2006, 11:08 PM
LAK,

The exit is described and is clearly visible in the photos as being on the right front of the head which is consistent with a shooter from the rear and the position of the head at the time of the shot. Dunno what else to say about that one...While one allegedly connected to the murder of another President is rather easily discounted on the words of a gov spokesman.You've tremendously overstated the importance of the document. IF it were true, it would, AT MOST, connect a congressman's staff with a small-time hood 30 years before the small time hood killed an assassin. To actually connect it to the assassination would require reasonable evidence connecting the congressman or his staff to the assassination, or reasonable evidence connecting the small-time hood to the assassination. Neither exists. They want THIS document to be that evidence, but 1. It's been called a fake by the alleged originators, and 2. It has zero provenance given that the alleged researcher declined to be named. if someone was going to go through the trouble of faking such a document pertaining to this particular subject matter that they would have invented a connection between Ruby and Nixon of all people.Well, when you manufacture evidence, you have to be careful to not manufacture evidence that is easily disproved. Besides, you have to remember what the atmosphere toward Nixon was like in 1975 (the date of the "discovery" of the document). Not too hard to believe that someone would try to connect him to the assassination out of pure spite.Not enough to send brain chunks, scalp and skull pieces up into the air and over everyones' heads. In an open limo with a sustantial windshield your theory is not reasonable.Did you even read the part about pieces being launched 40 (that's FORTY) feet into the air by the force of the bullet impact? I'm not talking about a 5mph motion generating a strong breeze, I'm talking about a BULLET impact blowing things high into the air and the 5mph limo moving out from under them before they come down. How long do you think it takes for a piece of skull or brain to go up forty feet and then fall back to the ground? CERTAINLY long enough for pieces to end up on the BACK of the limo EVEN if they were launched straight up or forward.

The article that Shawn linked and I quoted dealt very carefully with why the head-shot bullet fragmented. That is consistent with testing I have seen. While a 6.5mm Carcano bullet penetrated a great length of pine without being significantly damaged, it had much more of a tendency to be damaged when shot into a non-homogeneous material. Which is entirely consistent with the testing results described by the Drs. Lattimer.As far as shakey, the Oswald "lone nut" theory is about as shakey as it gets.A lot of people have tried to make it look that way, but the more one objectively researches the problem, the less shakey it looks. One of the more critical pieces of evidence that is largely ignored is that EVERYONE close to Oswald including his brother and wife have absolutely no problem believing that he did it.

LAK
April 20, 2006, 07:38 AM
JohnKSaThe exit is described and is clearly visible in the photos as being on the right front of the head which is consistent with a shooter from the rear and the position of the head at the time of the shot. Dunno what else to say about that one...
I do ...

The black and white photo of Kennedy laying flat on his back (where the small alleged entrance wound is visible at the right corner hairline) shows no such wound anywhere on the front of his head or face. Viewing the Zapruder film, he was facing forward at the impact of the headshot.
You've tremendously overstated the importance of the document. IF it were true, it would, AT MOST, connect a congressman's staff with a small-time hood 30 years before the small time hood killed an assassin. [etc]
Overstated?
Your statement here underscores the coincidence theory mindset; where a key assassination figure's association with a Senator and later President very personally associated with another suspect, E. Howard Hunt, is downplayed well below the flag level.
They want THIS document to be that evidence, but 1. It's been called a fake by the alleged originators, and 2. It has zero provenance given that the alleged researcher declined to be named.
The alleged document is either a fake - or it has enormous implications for Richard Nixon and some others around him.

E. Howard Hunt, the man whom Nixon risked impeachment and prison over, and resigned in lieu, in his obstruction of the FBI investigation into Hunt's past, was specifically implicated in the assassination. Was Marita Lorenz's testimony concerning Hunt and the Kennedy assassination a fabrication as well?

You see, these things need to be resolved completely if the fairytale is to be even considered as being partially true.
Well, when you manufacture evidence, you have to be careful to not manufacture evidence that is easily disproved. Besides, you have to remember what the atmosphere toward Nixon was like in 1975 (the date of the "discovery" of the document). Not too hard to believe that someone would try to connect him to the assassination out of pure spite.
Of course; but the document is not the only thing connecting Nixon to the assassination.
Did you even read the part about pieces being launched 40 (that's FORTY) feet into the air by the force of the bullet impact? I'm not talking about a 5mph motion generating a strong breeze, I'm talking about a BULLET impact blowing things high into the air and the 5mph limo moving out from under them before they come down.
The large pieces that landed on the trunk did not fly 40 feet into the air - and then fall down onto a moving car a few feet behind Kennedy. The limo was going faster than 5 mph, and even had it been going that speed, 40 feet is alot of freefall at such a pace.
How long do you think it takes for a piece of skull or brain to go up forty feet and then fall back to the ground? CERTAINLY long enough for pieces to end up on the BACK of the limo EVEN if they were launched straight up or forward.
See above. And long enough to land on the road behind, and as recorded onto the motocycle cops behind.

The bottom line is this, Connolly and the area around him and the front of the limo should have been covered with it.
The article that Shawn linked and I quoted dealt very carefully with why the head-shot bullet fragmented. That is consistent with testing I have seen. While a 6.5mm Carcano bullet penetrated a great length of pine without being significantly damaged, it had much more of a tendency to be damaged when shot into a non-homogeneous material. Which is entirely consistent with the testing results described by the Drs. Lattimer.
This is not consistant with what people that have used, and use, such bullets to hunt game animals with would agree with.

The roundnose full jacket bullets alleged to have been used were in the 154 to 160 grain range. Regardless of which, in this class of bullet they have extremely high sectional density. Which is why W D M Bell used them to brain shoot elephants - an exercize that aside from being inherently risky, a minimal deviation of bullet path through an enormous amount of bone structure and then brain tissue is required. Bell wrote that some of the bullets he used were recovered virtually re-useable, and only that the 6.5s would sometimes bend. In elephant heads!

Even if we presume that the military 6.5 bullets had slightly thinner jackets (and the "experts" should have addressed this point), a human skull is not but a fraction of the ballistic obstacle compared to that of an elephant.

Even if some bullet nose deformation occurred, the bullets would still have substantial length body remaining behind, and the bullet path would likely have been quite direct through the brain.

Even softpoint bullets of high weight for caliber (high sectional density) will plow a relatively staright path with a heavily deformed nose - even if the nose is assymetrically deformed - providing a long base shank remains. This is because of the stabilizing effect of the long shank.
A lot of people have tried to make it look that way, but the more one objectively researches the problem, the less shakey it looks. One of the more critical pieces of evidence that is largely ignored is that EVERYONE close to Oswald including his brother and wife have absolutely no problem believing that he did it.
Alot of people will state that they believe alot of thing if they are in fear of their life.

Or are directly involved themselves. Oswald's visit and circumstances in Russia - and his wife herself - are another very interesting subject.

And the fear factor is nowhere more prevalent than among people who are unable to comprehend the implications of a substantial number of people in high places that are willing to murder anyone that is a threat to them or their agenda. That one really scares people, and most will grab hold of anything rather than face that one. ;)

------------------------------------------

http://ussliberty.org
http://ssunitedstates.org

ctdonath
April 20, 2006, 10:44 AM
LAK,

The photos clearly show the back half of the skull is intact, save what appears to be a tiny entrance wound near the top.
The photos also clearly indicate - reinforced by the positioning of the examiner's hand with fingers inserted into gaping hole - the upper/front/right part of the skull blown out right around the hairline.

You misunderstood my comment about bullet path. I never said anything about an "abrupt turn". I didn't say it changed direction, I indicated that it did not enter perpendicularly & travel thru the center of the skull - as most conspiracy theorists presume axiomatically. Consistent with entry/exit wounds, shooter position, target position, and backstop damage, the bullet obviously and reasonably entered at a shallow angle to the skull's surface, traveled not thru the center (medula) but instead traveled no more than about an inch from the surface, and then exited also at a somewhat shallow angle, tending to blow pieces more up than forward (with some arcing back for Jackie to pick up as you insist). The strike was not centered and not perpendicular; it was an oblique angle travelling somewhere between center & tangential. Nothing unreasonable about that; must I draw pictures?
This ascribes to a great deal of trust in anything produced in a film media. Photographs are a far more reliable witness than short comments made to the press by politicians. I'll take a consistent set of autopsy photos over secondhand comments by a non-physician political operative making official statements to a press pool. Funny thing is, both are consistent! The photos show a large upper/front/right exit wound, and the entrance wound is understandably tiny and easily overlooked; the White House spokesman you quote pointed to his right forehead at the hairline - right where the exit wound is. Obviously & understandably he'd refer to the most obvious part of the complex injury: the graphic upper/front/right exit mess instead of the tiny entrance hole he may not have even noticed.
You are apparently under the notion that the U.S. Secret Service and training and SOPs were somehow undeveloped and inadequate prior to the Kennedy assassination. Even Connolly, who had no training in this regard at all, has stated, on camera ... that at the first shot he knew what it was, and that it must be an assassination attempt. It was somewhat more than a few seconds.I've seen the Zapruder film many times. The incident takes only a few seconds. Human response time, which here includes turning around, processing images, formulating a reaction, and acting is going to take about that long - how fast do you seriously expect them to act? especially with such a dramatic and unexpected initiating event? Even well-trained, they are human and it takes time to react; actually I'd say their reaction time was pretty good.

Heck, (for comparison) it takes about 1.5 seconds to draw and fire (a la Teuller Drill) when you're expecting an initiating event and have your eyes on a target. How long does it take YOU, while driving, to recognize a completely unexpected gunshot, turn your head, look at a backseat passenger, go "oh :what: he's been shot", decide what to do, step on the gas (you don't have to be looking forward to accelerate, remember), and then look forward?

And for more on "keeping him in the field of fire": it's not like they could instantly whisk JFK out of the field of fire. They're on a road. Limos take time to accelerate. Transmissions (manual or automatic) take time to switch from slow parade cruising speed to "they're shooting at us" escape velocity. Driving off-road wasn't a viable option; getting thru the bridge/tunnel (the only viable escape route) takes time, and the field of fire encompassed that whole section of road.

The whole incident took, what, six seconds? Under the "lone nut theory", how long do you seriously expect the scenario to play out, from first unexpected "crack" to suitable response from SS?

From what I'm reading of your theory, you expect:
- Perfect centered perpendicular headshot from moderate range
- Plainly visible wounds aren't
- Plain absence of wounds where severe damage is claimed to exist
- Multiple doctored autopsy photos (long before Photoshopping)
- Later known edited material trumps known originals
- Instantly exectued perfectly choreographed responses to unexpected unknown actions
Ain't buying it. Occam's Razor rules.

BTW: Have you tried "JFK Reloaded"? Clinched the "lone nut" theory for me in 5 minutes flat.

Shawn Dodson
April 20, 2006, 12:04 PM
How long does it take YOU, while driving, to recognize a completely unexpected gunshot, turn your head, look at a backseat passenger, go "oh he's been shot", decide what to do, step on the gas (you don't have to be looking forward to accelerate, remember), and then look forward? Classic OODA Loop stuff. The longest part is "orientation," i.e., correctly interpreting the situation based on the information you sense.

Also known as "WTFO?"

JohnKSa
April 20, 2006, 11:59 PM
LAK,

Just lost a long and carefully crafted reply to the combination post/flush feature of the board. :cuss: Here's a brief rehash.

Entry wound is circled in the pics I posted, it's not at the hairline.

Exit wound is on right front of head. You can see the damange extends down onto the right forehead above right eye. Flap of skull over ear is a piece of skull on scalp flap, not a wound. Look at the color picture and you can see that most of what should be covering the right front of his head is laying back down in flaps over the top of his head. His hair color and the blood merge in the B&W pics and make it harder to interpret the photos properly.

Memo isn't evidence even if it's true, and even if it were, it doesn't connect any primary players in the assassination. At best it connects Nixon's staff to Ruby neither of which were connected to the assassination. This kind of stuff gets a lot of attention because people don't realize how interconnected we all are--there are several interesting games/examples of this sort of thing. There was even a TV show that demonstrated how apparently unrelated things and events could be found to have circuitous connections. So even if the memo is genuine, it is not evidence of any conspiracy. Not even if you combine it with a bunch of other similar "non-evidence." ;)

Pieces went everywhere. UP, around, forward, back. Some were distributed by bullet impact. Some were distributed by Kennedy's head movements. Some were inadvertently moved around by the people in the vicinity. Watch the film. What's amazing is not where the pieces ended up but that everyone in the area didn't get hit with one.

The testing/reconstruction I've seen used the same type of bullets, same type of rifle and identical muzzle velocities and ranges as Oswald's. The article Shawn linked to was completely consistent with every scientific test/reconstruction I've seen.

I've read somewhere between 60 and 100 books on this topic and watched every documentary I could find. I started out trying to prove a conspiracy and was driven to conclude just the opposite. At this point, you're like someone trying to be witty by making a joke for an old guy about his funny name. You may think you've got something new and original and compelling, but I've heard it all before. :D

nyresq
April 21, 2006, 12:55 AM
Pfft. Everyone knows that Elvis shot JFK.


Get real. It's well known it was Bigfoot.



duh... what do you think Elvis really is????

notice the body hair??? the bushy eyebrows??
I mean who the hell else eats banana and peanut butter sandwiches????

Elvis=Bigfooot=Kennedy asassin

didn't anyone here pay any attention in school???? simple facts here people.....


:neener:

LAK
April 21, 2006, 06:41 AM
ctdonathThe photos clearly show the back half of the skull is intact, save what appears to be a tiny entrance wound near the top.
One photo does give that appearence. Another photo gives the precise same appearence of the exact same condition, and possible small entrance wound - of the front of the head
The photos also clearly indicate - reinforced by the positioning of the examiner's hand with fingers inserted into gaping hole - the upper/front/right part of the skull blown out right around the hairline.
Actually, a couple of the examiner's fingers could have been stuffed up his nose or in his mouth for all we know. They are not visible in any case, and there is no gaping wound on the face or forehead to stuff anything in the photo I have referred to.

So either one of the photos is doctored, the body's appearence altered some - or both - in one of these two photos. Which is it?
You misunderstood my comment about bullet path. I never said anything about an "abrupt turn". I didn't say it changed direction, I indicated that it did not enter perpendicularly & travel thru the center of the skull - as most conspiracy theorists presume axiomatically.
Now we are getting somewhere. But no "conspiracy theorist" that I know of that are knowledgeable of wound ballistics thinks this way.
Consistent with entry/exit wounds, shooter position, target position, and backstop damage, the bullet obviously and reasonably entered at a shallow angle to the skull's surface, traveled not thru the center (medula) but instead traveled no more than about an inch from the surface, and then exited also at a somewhat shallow angle, tending to blow pieces more up than forward (with some arcing back for Jackie to pick up as you insist).
The photo showing an alleged entry at the back of head does not appear to be a shallow angle hit as, like the one in the upper right hairline, is fairly clean and round looking.
The strike was not centered and not perpendicular; it was an oblique angle travelling somewhere between center & tangential. Nothing unreasonable about that; must I draw pictures?
This might explain the large scalp flap (it appears in the Zapruder film at impact) on the right side of the head in the photo that some claim the examiner has got his fingers in a "frontal exit" wound.

But lets recount some firsthand professional testimony; that of Dr. Robert McClelland, Dr. Richard Dulany, Dr, Charles Crenshaw, Dr. Marion Jenkins, Dr. Paul Peters, Dr. Kenneth Salyer, Dr. Ronald Jones, Dr. Charles Carrico and a nurse, Audrey Bell - all who have stated on film, and indicated with their open hand over the rear right portion of the head, that this is where Kennedy had a large open head wound.

All these people saw the body in a professional capacity, and or had direct contact with it. Are they all lying? If so; which is the greater and more ridiculous "conspiracy theory"? All these doctors lying, conspiring, along with others - and others faking a document and possible other evidence over a decade later? Or the gov fairytale?
Photographs are a far more reliable witness than short comments made to the press by politicians.
Right; except in this case we have two photos that are not in agreement with eyewitnesses and one which directly contradicts the gov fairytale.
I'll take a consistent set of autopsy photos over secondhand
Someone who claims that these two photos support each other is not talking about the same two photos. That is the only way I can avoid terms like non compus mentus, etc
comments by a non-physician political operative making official statements to a press pool
You mean like that of the New York Times the day after, written by Tom Wicker where he referenced sources as Dr. Malcolm Perry and Dr. Kemp Clark? It runs thus, QUOTE;

"Later in the Afternoon Dr. Malcolm Perry, attending surgeon, and Dr, Kemp Clark, chief of neurosurgery at Parkland Hospital, gave more details.

Mr. Kennedy was hit by a bullet in the throat, just below the Adam's apple, they said. The wound had the appearence of the bullet's entry.

Mr. Kennedy also had a massive, gaping wound in the back and one on the right side of the head. Howver doctors said it was impossible to determine immediately whether the wounds had been caused by one bullet or two. "
ENDQUOTE
Funny thing is, both are consistent! The photos show a large upper/front/right exit wound, and the entrance wound is understandably tiny and easily overlooked; the White House spokesman you quote pointed to his right forehead at the hairline - right where the exit wound is. Obviously & understandably he'd refer to the most obvious part of the complex injury: the graphic upper/front/right exit mess instead of the tiny entrance hole he may not have even noticed.
There is not a single mark - even a blemish - on Kennedy's face, except the small one already discussed, at the corner hairline. The injection of the word "front" here again indicates we are not speaking of the same photos again. There is nothing shown on the front of Kennedy's head. Not a thing.

Now, Dr. Cyril Wecht, onetime chief of the American Academy of Forensic Sciences has theorized that it may have been two bullets in a synchronized shooting. But he does not buy the fairytale as told. Is he qualified?

I have to take issue with this habitual suggestion by coincidence theorists who seem to like to promote the idea that they themselves, and they alone, and regardless of the incident discussed, somehow hold the intellectual highground in matters are that hotly contested by often several sides of very qualified and expert people. They like applying terms like "conspiracy theorists" in a derogatory context, all the while ignoring the often more absurd conpiracy theory embodied in the official fable.

If you want an objective debate, one that has any hope of a conclusion, or a step closer to one, that nonsense is not going to take it there.
I've seen the Zapruder film many times. The incident takes only a few seconds. Human response time, which here includes turning around, processing images, formulating a reaction, and acting is going to take about that long - how fast do you seriously expect them to act? especially with such a dramatic and unexpected initiating event? Even well-trained, they are human and it takes time to react; actually I'd say their reaction time was pretty good.
Having a good forty years plus of adventure and experience in let's say more than a few a hair-raising situations. Some short, some long, some accompanied by much noise, some serenely quiet, the fear of death, some otherwise. I really don't need a lecture on this stuff.

I don't know how much boy and adulthood adventure Gov Connolly had up to this point - but he has stated that he knew immediately at the first rifle shot that it must be an assassination attempt. But let's get back to the Zapruder film. How long is it from the first shot to last, exactly? The Zapruder film is 26.6 seconds total; the actual shooting is more than "a few seconds".

The driver turns around twice, and stares at Kennedy the second time - doing an estimated 9 mph - while rifleshots are still ringing out, Kennedys shirtfront and hands bloodied, and does nothing until his brains get airborne.

That is the reaction of one of two explanations. A Secret Service agent whose task was to keep Kennedy in the kill zone long enough. Or someone who was sustituted for a Seceret Service agent as driver before the fact. I would not accept anything else as being a rational explanation. The same could be applied to the other agent in the front for that matter.
Heck, (for comparison) it takes about 1.5 seconds to draw and fire (a la Teuller Drill) when you're expecting an initiating event and have your eyes on a target.
Again, it is plain in the film; the agent almost leisurely turns around twice during the shooting. It is not until the brains flew that he earnestly faces forward, and stomps on the gas. It was a clear set up.
How long does it take YOU, while driving, to recognize a completely unexpected gunshot, turn your head, look at a backseat passenger, go "oh he's been shot", decide what to do, step on the gas (you don't have to be looking forward to accelerate, remember), and then look forward?
"Decide what to do"? This would be hysterically funny were the subject perhaps something else.

The guy had slowed to about NINE mph to begin with. Does that tell you anything?
And for more on "keeping him in the field of fire": it's not like they could instantly whisk JFK out of the field of fire. They're on a road. Limos take time to accelerate. Transmissions (manual or automatic) take time to switch from slow parade cruising speed to "they're shooting at us" escape velocity. Driving off-road wasn't a viable option; getting thru the bridge/tunnel (the only viable escape route) takes time, and the field of fire encompassed that whole section of road.
That limo should have accelerated enough to have made a bit of a zig zag using the whole road a good starting point. I have driven alot of big heavy cars, many with less power than those made during the 1960s, standard and automatics. The driver of that limo did nothing until it was over and done with - and put him there to begin with at about NINE miles per hour.
The whole incident took, what, six seconds? Under the "lone nut theory", how long do you seriously expect the scenario to play out, from first unexpected "crack" to suitable response from SS?
We must backpedal some.

He should not have allowed the speed of the unprotected limo to drop that low to begin with. But at the first rifleshot, one quick glance over his shoulder at Kennedy should have been enough. By the time of the second shot, he should have been hard on the gas and swerving. His colleague should have been making his way if possible into the back to cover him physically.
Instantly exectued perfectly choreographed responses to unexpected unknown actions
Since the Secret Service was tasked with close in personal protection of presidents, this the way they have been trained and for what. They have, from the beginning, been the most highly trained in this regard of any agency. Much like their counterparts in some other countries, I can not imagine where you may have got your impression that it would be anything else.
"JFK Reloaded"?
No, I haven't. If it can explain why a half dozen doctors lied to create a "conspiracy theory" by offering conflicting eyewitness testimony to a single photo - among the other points dissected - I'd like to see it.

------------------------------------------------

http://ussliberty.org
http://ssunitedstates.org

LAK
April 21, 2006, 08:09 AM
JohnKSaJust lost a long and carefully crafted reply to the combination post/flush feature of the board
After that happened to me a time or two I got into the habit of "cutting - ready to paste" the more complicated posts before touching the SUBMIT button ;)
Exit wound is on right front of head. You can see the damange extends down onto the right forehead above right eye. Flap of skull over ear is a piece of skull on scalp flap, not a wound. Look at the color picture and you can see that most of what should be covering the right front of his head is laying back down in flaps over the top of his head. His hair color and the blood merge in the B&W pics and make it harder to interpret the photos properly.
To save much repeat, I'll refer to my post to ctdonath. I would add that there is one obvious and as yet never officially explained difference between the b&w and one color image of Kennedy on his back. These photos were allegedly taken at different times and places. But basically, there is one distinct different beyond any arguement. The color image shows extended exposed subcutaneous (and deeper) tissue culminating in a distinctive apex well below the hairline on the right upper forehead. This is not what is seen in the ealier b&w image showing the alleged small entrance wound at the upper right hairline corner.
Memo isn't evidence even if it's true, and even if it were, it doesn't connect any primary players in the assassination. At best it connects Nixon's staff to Ruby neither of which were connected to the assassination.
It is circumstantial; if there were no other people connected to Nixon of interest in the Kennedy assassination it would still warrant a thorough look into. We can not say it merely ties Ruby to one or more of Nixon's staff, because without an indepth investigation that can not be accepted on an assumption. Not in a true murder investigation anyway. In a whitewash it might fly - for awhile.
This kind of stuff gets a lot of attention because people don't realize how interconnected we all are--there are several interesting games/examples of this sort of thing. ... etc
All very entertaining for some people I suppose. But one has to suffer from at least a temporary lapse of some kind - or perhaps wilful ignorance - to deny or not notice the various other issues and people connecting Nixon to the Kennedy assassination.
Pieces went everywhere. UP, around, forward, back. Some were distributed by bullet impact. Some were distributed by Kennedy's head movements. Some were inadvertently moved around by the people in the vicinity. Watch the film. What's amazing is not where the pieces ended up but that everyone in the area didn't get hit with one.
I agree. But Connolly, his wife and the area around them should have had it all over them. According to the official fairytale. But as there was no frontal exit wound on Kennedy's face, it comes as no surprize that there is no mention that I know of any indication that any blood, brains, scalp, bone, teeth, cartilage, fatty tissue was distributed in Connolly's vicinity.
The testing/reconstruction I've seen used the same type of bullets, same type of rifle and identical muzzle velocities and ranges as Oswald's. The article Shawn linked to was completely consistent with every scientific test/reconstruction I've seen.
All well and good. What precisely were the jacket thicknesses, were they consistant? This is crucial; many roundnose FMJ bullets designed for hunting will not go to pieces on bone. Given the condition of the bullet that showed up on the stretcher (the wrong stretcher) at Parkland hospital, it is not likely it was the one that zigzagged Connolly's body parts. And not the fragmented ones tested in various bullet vs bone tests.

It is unfathomable that bullets possibly identical to those that have routinely drilled elephant skulls would go to pieces on one human head. On the otherhand, if they were military spec, made by a particular gov or contractor for issue to one of more armies, it is crucial that the jackets be measured for comparison. They may have had thinner jackets. But simply using similar style 6.5 bullets of even exactly the same weight isn't going to cut it.
I've read somewhere between 60 and 100 books on this topic and watched every documentary I could find. I started out trying to prove a conspiracy and was driven to conclude just the opposite. At this point, you're like someone trying to be witty by making a joke for an old guy about his funny name. You may think you've got something new and original and compelling, but I've heard it all before.
That's an irrational conclusion given so much eyewitness testimony that directly indicates to the contrary. I count twelve medical staff alone. If you have heard them all, by name (refer to my above post) - what exactly is your theory explaining their cohesive story contrary to one possibly doctored photo?

And speaking of testimony, you failed to comment on Marita Lorenz's testimony concerning E. Howard Hunt (among others). That one, I believe was under oath.

----------------------------------------

http://ussliberty.org
http://ssunitedstates.org

usp9
April 21, 2006, 09:32 AM
Oswald killed Kennedy...simple as that. :scrutiny:

O J Killed Ron and Nichole...simple as that. :eek:

The Rosenbergs were really spies...simple as that. :(

Flying saucers do not really have ET inside...simple as that.:what:

The government sucks too much tax revenue from my wallet.:cuss:

This is the way it is.

answerguy
April 21, 2006, 11:50 AM
Lots of discussion about percentages in this thread. What about the odds of LHO being hired to work at the TSBD just 5 weeks before JFK makes his trip to Dallas.
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/oswald.htm

When was the parade route made public? If LHO was hired before the parade route was made public does that point to a government conspiracy or that LHO was the 'luckiest' man in the world?

ctdonath
April 22, 2006, 01:42 AM
there is no gaping wound on the face or foreheadNever said there was.

What I do keep pointing out - and you keep ignoring - is the gaping wound in the front hemisphere and above the hairline. That's in the front of his head.

As we seem unable to agree on something as basic as what constitutes "front of the head", there really isn't much point in continuing the discussion further. Doubly so when much of your conspiracy theory rests on subjective interpretations, second-guessing human behavior, 20/20 hindsight, and assuming complex subterfuge when something doesn't match your presumptions.

All I can say is: Line up the known mechanics of the situation, and it all points to a single shooter. If in doing so your results point elsewhere, I have reason to believe you don't have your facts right, which I find is common among conspiracy theorists. Lacking or misunderstanding a fact requires a complex, and often absurd, explaination to make it all fit - and excessive complexity in an explaination is usually indicative of a flaw in reasoning. I have to agree with JohnKSa in that every theory, as novel as it may be to you, has been examined ... with only "Oswald, alone" surviving scrutiny.

And I find it odd that you, being such an adamant researcher of the subject, have not looked into the only truly new - and intensely controversial - analysis of the event: JFK Reloaded. (...maybe because it shows "Oswald, alone" makes sense.)

JohnKSa
April 22, 2006, 01:45 AM
That's an irrational conclusion given so much eyewitness testimony that directly indicates to the contrary.It is expected to have a certain amount of contradictory evidence. Fortunately we have photo and film and other evidence as well as reconstructions to help us determine what really happened.

FWIW, most of the "contradictions" I researched to death weren't NEARLY so contradictory as the conspiracy theorists tried to make them.

Preacherman
April 22, 2006, 10:21 AM
Folks, I'm getting very, very tired of all the conspiracy theorists and their blathering. Enough! We shall never know more than we know now about JFK's killing, and that's that.

If you enjoyed reading about "Did secret service accidentally fire fatal shot to JFK's head" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!