P Jennings to prove there was no conspiracy in JFK murder

[bobbieinok]

tonight in a 2 hour program.

This is what a colleague told me this morning.

Anyone know anything about this?

[el_gato]

1. what a joke

that program will probably have zero content value

[donotpassgo]

2. no...but there have been several shows recently proving that

The single bullet theory as well as all the Oswald post assassination movement is plausible. It all has to come together just perfectly and with a heaping helping of just dumb luck in many cases.

[Guaranteed]

7. Well...just for argument's sake...

Most of life's events happen with things coinciding just perfectly with each other and a heaping helping of just dumb luck.

[donotpassgo]

10. and that is what changed my mind...luck happens.

Oswald was an average shot, but those shots were not impossible.
He had been trained in marksmanship and the limo slowing down gave him just enought time for the headshot.

All presidential assassin suspects were lone nuts. Czolgosz, Guiteau, Hinkley, Zangarra, Booth. Oswald just may have been (for him) at the right place at the right time.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

27. Booth? How come the Government hung several people as...

...co-conspirators? Did you know that those co-conspirators were tried while chained with heavy bags over their heads? Why weren't they allowed to speak in their own defense? What was the Government afraid of hearing?

Did you know that the Bush and Hinckley families go way back? John Hinckley, Sr., gave money to Poppy Bush, a fellow Texas oilman, as far back as 1970. The senior Hinckley also raised funds for Bush's unsuccessful campaign to wrest the nomination from Reagan. Furthermore, he and Scott Hinckley separately contributed to John Connally in late 1979 when Connally (having recently switched to the GOP) was leading the campaign to stop Reagan from gaining the 1980 presidential nomination. The Bush and Hinckley families would have done better under a Bush presidency than it would under Reagan.
Did you also know that Neil Bush was about to have lunch with Scott Hinckley, brother of John Hinkley, the day that John tried to kill Reagan?

Now, let's move on to Oswald. Oswald couldn't have hit the broad side of a barn with the rifle that allegedly belonged to him. Even the FBI weapons experts would not test-fire the Mannlicher-Carcano until repairs had been made to the rifle to correct:

1) a sticking bolt mechanism that slowed down the operation of the rifle between shots;

2) a trigger that exhibited a normal pull until just before the weapon was to be fired when it went into a hair-trigger mode;

3) the scope which was loose and had to have a shim added before it could be properly aligned on a target.

Additionally, it has only been in recent years that someone proposed that the first shot was actually fired BEFORE JFK's limo went behind the tree the blocked it from the 6th floor corner window of the TSBD. That little theory gave the Warren Commission apologists the extra time they needed to explain how LHO suposedly fired three shots from that wreck of a rifle. But nobody has bothered to explain the angle at which that bullet would have arrived.

And what of the damage to the limo itself? In photos taken of JFK's limo back in the Secret Service garage, it had a small through-and-through hole in the windshield, and a circular dent in the frame above the window. The hole in the windshield could have been caused by a fragment from JFK's headshot. But what about the dent in the frame...where did that shot come from? And why was LBJ in such hurry to get the limo shipped back to the manufacturer that DAY AFTER THE ASSASSINATON? Why was it hosed out and cleaned up before any evidence was collected?

And what of all of the ear- and eyewitnesses who testified that they heard shots being fired from behind the fence on the Grassy Knoll?

How is it that so many people were in Dallas that day that had a vested interest in the killing of JFK? J. Edgar Hoover, Poppy Bush, Nixon, E. Howard Hunt, Frank Sturgis, and others were there. Why?

You know, when assassinations take place in other countries the first question raised has to do with how many people were involved. In this country, we're expected to believe the "lone nut gunman" theory because the U.S. Government tells us it's true. Tell me why any of us should ever trust what the government tells us without double-checking.

[dflprincess]

63. Ahem

The Federal government did execute people for conspiring to kill Lincoln. They also imprisoned Dr. Mudd (a relative of Roger's) for assisting Booth by setting his broken leg. As far as I know, Dr. Mudd was the only one ever exonerated.

[jsw_81]

104. Average shot?

If you had watched tonight's program you would have seen that Oswald was an excellent shot.

[directinfection]

156. possibly

but it doesn't explain the angle of the final shot. clearly it didn't come from behind him. after watching the footage, its hard to imagine how you could not beleive that.

[PAMod]

162. Clearly it DID come from behind him.

Follow the bloody halo not the entire head.

The exit wound is clearly in the top/front of the head, with the expulsion of brain/blood flying FORWARD, not backwards.

Don't think basic high school physics, think ballistic science.

NONE of the bullets that landed on President Kennedy/Governor Connally came from the front.

NONE.

I'm not saying there definitely wasn't a conspiracy, I'm just saying they were hit from behind.

[Solomon]

168. Nope. I disagree. Look at the autopsy photos and read what the

first doctors who examined hims said. The back of his head was blown clean off. That was the exit wound of the head shot. The shot clearly came from the front.

[PAMod]

171. The autopsy photos show a small hole in the upper back of his head...

The "blown out" part is on the top, with flaps of skull/skin/hair hanging down above his right ear.

The doctors at Parkland NEVER examined his back or the back of his head - in fact, they never took him off the gurney to attempt stabilazation/resuscitation. Several doctors, when shown the autopsy photographs (albeit years later), accepted them as valid.

You can have your conspiracy if you want, but President Kennedy and Governor Connally were shot from behind.

To insist that they were shot from the front just ruins any credible argument you might have regarding real conspiracy questions (Oswald & the CIA, etc.)

[Solomon]

178. Listen to the doctors who saw his head. They were just as shocked

to see those autopsy pictures because when they saw his head, the back was blown clean off. It has nothing to do with my "wanting" a conspiracy. Do you think I was happy when I found out the Warren Commission Report was bullshit? No. It hurt me to the core. Ever since I have been trying to believe the official version and that is why I watched the Jennings program. If you'll read what I've said on this thread, I've said consistently that the program was very impressive. They did explain how the single bullet could have worked. What they didn't explain is that the doctors who saw the head said that the front was an entrance wound and practically the whole backright side of his head was blown out. That sir. Indicates an exit wound, not an entrance wound.

[PAMod]

189. I shouldn't have made it sound like you "want" a conspiracy...

I just meant to say that there can still be a conspiracy without multiple shooters.

I believe the evidence shows that there was only one shooter that landed any shots. Any other shooter missed. I think the evidence is overwhelming in that regard.

[Nederland]

190. What about the Zapruder film?

Your theory smacks in the face of what is clearly frontal exit wound in the Zapruder film. Say whatever you like about what some doctor thinks they say in the autopsy room, that film footage tells a different story. I'll trust the film evidence over heresay any day.

[Ani Yun Wiya]

110. About Booth.

Seven people were hung.
He had help from many in Maryland, Virginia and even Canada.
There were even higher-ups, that were privy to his plans.
Even on that day others in league with Booth were assaulting other officials at differents locations.
There were at least THREE different teams busy that day, and Lincoln was not the only target.

[ohiosmith]

3. Jennings is Canadian. Canadians are commies,

(look at the colours of their flag). Russia and Cuba conspired with the Mafia (Mafia connection: even the score w/Bobbie) to assassinate JFK. Jennings the Canadian commie is covering up for Nikita, Fidel, and the boys.

[bicentennial_baby]

6. You are kidding

righht?

[ohiosmith]

The Soviets played hockey.

Cuba is famous for cigars. I have personally seen Canadians smoking cigars at hockey games. The obvious can be ignored but not denied.

[Guaranteed]

88. Also, Wayne Gretzky is a hockey player.

"Gretzky" sounds pretty fucking Russian to me.

[Andyjunction]

91. Oh my God...

You're right! Every team that wins the Stanley Cup drinks champagne in the locker room afterwards. And they also smoke cigars.

Damn red and white flag having, commie cigar smoking, french speaking, health care giving, hockey playing, Kennedy killing bastards!

edit: Prove me wrong!

[Andyjunction]

101. ha!

You notice how all the Canadians don't want to answer these questions? They're obviously hiding something.

I believe the Avalanche moved here from Quebec because they could no longer live with the lie.

Go Avs!

edit: prove me wrong! :evilgrin:

[MrPrax]

139. The Avs and Jets!!

The Avs were 'placed' in Colorado to watch NORAD and the Jets were 'placed' in Arizona to be closer to 'alien alley'...
The truth can't be denied....

[Bombtrack]

4. Most likely tows the Gerald Posner/John McAdams line

most of there bull has been refuted.

[NicoleM]

5. They have

a computer simulation of the Zapruder film. They can look at what happened from just about any angle. They say the simulation proves that Oswald acted alone, or at least that he could have.

[AntiCoup2K4]

50. Computer simulations do whatever they are programmed to do

And if they're programmed by a CIA drone to support the "official" bullshit story, than that's what the little video game is gonna show.

[Andyjunction]

98. you can prove it wrong

Just buy a ticket to Dallas and go to Dealey Plaza.

The Road is right where it was. The book deopsitory is right where it was. You, and any person in the world, willing and able, can go there in person and see if the trajectories programed into the computer are right or wrong.

This is simply not something which can be manipulated in the way you imply it has been.

[NoPasaran]

8. Glad someone's finally going to do it

Forty years of conspiracy theories are enough.

[el_gato]

9. So you believe in the magic bullet eh?

[donotpassgo]

11. This show on court TV used computer simulations to show that

Connoly and JFK were in a different position than the magic bullet theory picture presents.

[KFC]

12. Yep. In truth, they were lined up so the bullet could go straight through

Instead of a tortuous path. I saw that too.

[MadHound]

13. And the bullet comes out clean on the other side?

Riiiiight. Sorry, but that dog won't hunt. How can you have a bullet rip through dense muscle, hard bone, leaving many fragments of itself in the two bodies(in fact Connaly still carries some lead from that day), and yet this very same bullet turns up in pristine condition at Parkland Hospital. Explain that one away.

While you're at it, explain away basic laws of physics, ie how an object that is supposedly struck from the back is seen moving towards the force expended. Whirl that one up so that Newton doesn't spin in his grave.

Ooo Ooo, I've got another physics law for you to explain away too. How does an entrance wound wind up being extremely larger than the exit wound? In every other case, the exit wound is larger than the entrance wound. Why does this one violate the laws of physics?

And tell me, how is it that Oswald was able to get three shots off in 5.6 seconds from a notoriously bad gun, shooting through heavy foliage at a moving target. Not only that, but in 9 out of ten cases, the first shot is the best shot. In this case, it is the last shot that is the kill shot. Do you realize that six FBI sharpshooters tried fire off three shots(without even aiming) shots in 5.6 seconds, and could only get off two? What, did Oswald have the magic Italian rifle in addition to the magic bullet? Sheesh, and people say conspiracy theorists are nuts!

One last thing, what makes you a better judge of what went on than the House Select Committee on Assasinations? Did you see all of the evidence? They did. Did you hear all of the expert testimony? They did. And this was a group of people who were actually designed to put the conspiracy theories to rest. But the case was so convincing that they had to reluctantly conclude that there was at least a fourth shot, if not more, hence a conspiracy. What do you have to back your theories up? The Warren Report? Hah, that piece of fiction was debunked long ago, by the very government that initially put it out.

Give it up, your stance on this matter is wholly without merit.

[donotpassgo]

19. OK...you want to play this game smart ass...

http://karws.gso.uri.edu/JFK/JFK.html

The single bullet theory is PLAUSIBLE and the Zapruder film PROVES is.

There are dozens of slow motion tests of a Manlicher Carcanno bullet being fired into a skull from some distance and, you guessed it, the skull flies BACKWARDS.

For you to be so snide in your comments, I don't think you really understand physics yourself.

Oooo Oooo Ok...Court TV did a forensic examination of the assassination and live an in living colour proved that 3 accurate shots could be made with the MC rifle from that distance.

Why?...The Limo SLOWED DOWN just before the third shot. Also photographic evidence proves that JFK's limo was not aligned with the grassy knoll for the head shot. So it could not have come from there.

Finally the best evidence of four shots was from the Police Radio on a motorcycle in the motorcade...unfortunately, the Motorcycle was not IN the motorcade at the time and voices on the tapes proved it came from broadcasts AFTER the shootings.

There are a lot of recent findings that solidify the single bullet theory. All you are left with is babblings about Mafia/CIA/Communists and a smug demeanor.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

30. And the medical evidence disproves the nonsense the Warren Commission...

...provided as reading for the easily fooled.

How was JFK's neck wound described by the first medical people to see it at Parkland?

How is it that nearly forty medical personnel at both Parkland and Bethesda described the wound in the back of JFK's head as one of exit?

[donotpassgo]

32. The Warren Report is sloppy...the military and local doctors

were all stepping on each others feet. Sloppy expediency is not the asame as conspiracy.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

35. Read the actual medical reports...you might learn something...

...besides what the Government wants you to believe.

Speaking of "sloppy expediency", that's exactly how I would describe Arlen Specter's "Single Bullet Theory". The Warren Commision desperately needed something that would allow them to wrap up all of the wounds in two grown men in a nice neat package. Arlen stepped up and provided one of the most fanciful explanations ever given to the American public.

By the way, do you know that the Warren Commission was never able to duplicate the wounds in JFK and Connally? They actually fired M-C rounds into goat cadavers and wrists from human corpses, and ended up with badly mangled M-C rounds.

[donotpassgo]

38. Key Word...Theory. Do you believe in the BIG BANG? how bout Evolution?

Can you prove it absolutely? How do you know they exist? CONNOLY and JFK were NOT FACING FRONT. Watch the friggin Zapruder film. Connoly turned back towards JFK who was sitting several inches ABOVE him. This alignment supports the single bulllet theory.

The Warren commission couldn't duplicate the wounds, but SUBSEQUENT investigations have proved otherwise including the 'PRISTINE' bullet.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

43. Wow!! I love how the defenders of the Warren Commission get all...

...agitated when backed into a corner with no possible exit.

JFK was not facing the front of the limo? Hmmmm. Connally was not facing the fron of the limo when JFK was first hit? Hmmmm. JFK was sitting "several inches ABOVE" Connally? Hmmmm. You must have access to photographs of the assassination I've never seen before. Please provide a link.

You'll have to link the "SUBSEQUENT investigations have proved otherwise" about the wounds. I'd be very interested in where you found that material...if indeed it actually exists.

[Andyjunction]

83. Who's backed into a corner?

One of these kids won't accept reality. Now's the time to play our game!

[Parche]

31. SINGLE BULLET THEORY

Is the biggest lie coming out of this government ever
no bullet that goes thru that many limbs and bones and flesh
would ever come out like the shape it was in when it was found
Someone if at all, firing from the 6th floor depository would have
a down angle when shooting, there is no evidence of that angle
it is all at the same level as the motorcade was.

If he was hit from behind he would have been in Connolly's lap
from the force

Why did the secret service push LBJ down when the heard the shots
and did nothing for JFK
Why did the limo slow down at just the right time
Who was there that day
Who was mayor of Dallas
What fired CIA director was put on the Warren Commission

These are not conspiracy theories they are facts

[donotpassgo]

33. Hmmm

"Is the biggest lie coming out of this government ever
no bullet that goes thru that many limbs and bones and flesh
would ever come out like the shape it was in when it was found
Someone if at all, firing from the 6th floor depository would have
a down angle when shooting, there is no evidence of that angle
it is all at the same level as the motorcade was."

This is based on what...Your multiple viewings of JFK? There were 30+ cameras capturing the motorcade that night. Based on those pictures they have come up with a computer simulation of the assassination. The Pristine bullet was NOT pristine. It was warped (indicating a spinning bullet) and damaged at the tip (the throat wound). Connoly and JFK match up well enought that the magic bullet theory is quite plausible. And SEVERAL ballisticts tests prove the headshot could only have come from behind.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

39. How about based on the fact that the Warren Commission was never....

...able to duplicate the wounds found on JFK and Connally and still have rounds in nearly pristine condition? In fact, they fired M-C rounds into goat cadavers and wrists from human corpses and always ended up with badly mangled M-C rounds.

Got news for you about the "Magic Bullet". It is an identical match with M-C rounds that have been fired into cotton for the purposes of ballistic matching.

Tell me all about the bullet tip being damaged by JFK's throat wound. You do know that the medical personnel at Parkland described it as an entry wound don't you? Did you also know that a tracheotomy was performed at the site of the entry wound, thus making the wound appear elongated? And just how was the round tumbling and when did that first start to occur? Interesting theory...I'm interested in how you defend this one.

You'll also have to link those "SEVERAL ballistic tests" that you mentioned concerning the JFK headshot. I don't recall anything of the sort and I've been following this very closely for about 40 years.

[Andyjunction]

90. may I ask...

How many bullets you think hit Kennedy and Connaly and if you have any sort of theory?

If you want our side to defend our clearly laid out theory, you should at least have a vague theory of your own to defend. That's only fair.

[Andyjunction]

87. actually

I believe the only bone the bullet hit was in Connally's wrist after having been slowed down by passing through Kennedy's neck and Connally's side. It then came to rest in his left thigh where it fell out on the stretcher.

You'd have to be an omniscient being with knowledge of all that has passed and all that is to come to have planted that bullet where it was found. You also would have had to remove the actual bullet or you'd be wasting your time and only making things worse.

[MadHound]

42. You are a riot, truly, you are

Court TV, really is that the best you can do, Court TV?

My question to you is did your live and in living color guys actually fire those shot within the 5.6 second time frame that was allotted? Distance is not the problem, nor was that the point I was making. It is the time frame that is impossible. And thank you, but I'll take the expertise of the FBI over the meanderings of CourtTV. Oh, and another question, did they make those shots through the dense foliage of a tree? You've got to take that into consideration, because that is what Oswald was supposedly shooting through, the foliage of a Texas live oak, in full leaf.

And actually, as far as photographic evidence goes, there is a picture, taken at the exact time of the kill shot, that shows what looks to be a muzzle flash. As techniques and technology have gotten better over the years, they have blown up the picture, and pulled out of it the sillouhette of a man holding what appears to be a rifle, with the flash originating from it. Any answers for that one?

Then there is the matter of the dozens and dozens of witnesses who both heard a gunshot and saw a muzzle flash followed by smoke coming from behind the fence. Yes, there were lots of lay folk in this crowd, but there were also several policmen and combat vetrans, people who have had first hand intimate experience with being under fire. In fact there were so many who were convinced that there was a shooter behind the fence that they started running up the grassy knoll in an effort to apprehend him, only to be turned back by men claiming to be police and secret service agents.

As for sound analysis, I suggest you check out the transcripts of the House Select Committee on Assasinations. They had a number of expert sound witnesses who had done extensive audio analysis of the tapes of the day, and found conclusively that there was at least one shot fired from the grassy knoll, with more originating from the upper stories of the building across Elm St. from the book depository. They also found the distinct possibility that there was a shot fired from a sewer grate further up Elm towards the overpass. This grate has since been paved over.

I also notice that you didn't touch the question about how the magic bullet remained so clean and intact after smashing through flesh and bone, leaving fragments of itself behind in both Kennedy and Connaly. I wouldn't touch it either if I was a true magic bullet believer. It just is too much of an unexplainable enigma eh, it just doesn't fit into your neat little theory. That's OK, you're in good company, the Warren Commission let that little bomb be too.

And yes, a skull, unattached, can fly back towards the shot when it is struck. But when it is attached and covered with flesh, it will always move back, away from the shot. You are going to be violating Newton's 2nd law if you think otherwise. Have you ever hunted. Use your own powers of observation, don't rely on TV trickery. You also haven't addressed the physical impossibility of having an entrance wound larger than the exit wound. Did you see anything on TV that addressed that little conundrum?

So sure, let's play this little game. Let's see, you rely on the debunked Warren Commission report, then next you rely on Court TV. I can't wait to see your next "source".

[jsw_81]

106. For Christ's sake

On tonight's program they had an EIGHTY-NINE YEAR-OLD MAN fire three shots in the alloted time. If he could do it don't you think a 24 year-old Marine Corps sharpshooter like Oswald could do the same?

[Terwilliger]

131. Oswald was thirty

conveniently working in the one place that set-up a wonderful Kennedy-kill....I'm sure he went to work at the SBD knowing full well Kennedy would come through at just the right time and he'd be just in the right place. Yep, pure happenstance.

[jsw_81]

183. Oswald was 24

He was born in 1939.

[AbbieLives]

127. Tin hat or not...

3 shots.
3 hits.
At a moving target.
Shooting through trees.
With a flawed, poorly-made gun he bought through the mail.
In 6.7 seconds.

I think I'll pass on that scenario, but thanks.

[jsw_81]

105. The bullet wasn't 'clean'

It was partially flattened on one side. They even did tests on dead bodies and surprise, surprise, the bullet was in the almost exact same condition.

And BTW, it doesn't matter what a bunch of clueless legislators/lawyers on the "House committee" concluded back in the 1970's. Scientific truth is NOT determined by majority vote. And tonight's program *destroyed* the committee's dictabelt "evidence" that supposedly proved a fourth shot from the grassy knoll. Virtually all the experts, including scientists from the FBI and the elite National Academy of Sciences, rejected the committee's findings. But I suppose they're in on the conspiracy too, right? :eyes:

[MadHound]

114. Oh Lord, if its on TV it must be true!

But the question of the bullet is not whether it was flattened on one side or another, but just the fact that it was WHOLE. What accounts for the fragments from that bullet left in Kennedy and Connaly? There was something like 10 grams of lead left in those two men, and yet the magic bullet was missing less than one. How can that be?

And this bullet shouldn't just be "flattened", it should be smashed to smithereens. It went through two thick bones. In every test that has been done, the bullets were seriously deformed, yet this one comes out unscathed. Give me a break.

And you claim that an eight nine year old man fired an MC bolt action rifle three times in 5.6 seconds. Gee, somehow I have a hard time believing that, being as that the manufacturer specs had the recycle rate at 2.1 seconds. On top of that, before the rifle was test fired, the FBI had to repair Oswalds rifle to correct a problem with the sight, and a sticking bolt mechanism. Sorry, I'll still stick to the FBI experts rather than a self serving TV show.

And its suprising that they're now trying to discredit the sound evidence, and no, it is not suprising to find the FBI and NAS falling into step on this one. They know which side their bread is buttered on. Did they also *destroy* the eyewitness testimony and the photographic evidence? ?

And it is interesting that you choose to believe one government committee, the Warren Commission, who didn't have all of the facts, over another more substantialy informed government committe, the HSCA. Part of the point I'm trying to make here is that the HSCA was set up to be another whitewash job, but wound up being convinced. That is significant.

And then there is Fletcher Prouty, and his testimony. Did this show have anything to counteract that? You know, why did New Zealand have Oswald's complete life story on the front page of the paper, claiming he was the killer BEFORE Oswald was arrested? Why was SOP not followed, with the army battalion who was to guard the President told to stand down? Why was the parade route changed from the much safer, straighter, faster Main St. route, to the slow and tortous Houston-Elm St. route, and who changed it? And on and on the questions go. And yet nobody has these answers. Gee, I wonder why.

I find your faith in TV a bit naive. Don't you know that these folks have an agenda, or have you not been paying attention. I suppose that you buy all of the David Copperfield TV tricks as real to, eh?

[MadHound]

123. Oh, and another point I failed to mention earlier

That's what I get for debating before I've finished my first cup of coffee

Anyway, it is no wonder the ABC program destroyed the dictabelt evidence, it was a strawman to begin with. First off, the dictabelt recording submitted as evidence before the Warren Commission and HSCA was proven to be a copy of a copy that was probably altered. Second, there was hetrodyneing(a form of jamming/feedback obtained by using two or more open mikes that are on the same frequency) on this dictabelt. This hetrodyneing occured right before the shots were fired, and ended shortly after they ended. Thus no police officer could use his radio to call in reports or ask for help.

No, the sound evidence used before the HSCA was from other recordings made that day. Did the ABC program even mention those, much less *destroy* them?

So, it was a nice looking strawman they destroyed, but a strawman nonetheless. Do some research that is outside of the TV so you won't be suckered by strawmen again.

[jab105]

176. They addressed all those points on the show...

It was 8 seconds...and they had an 89 year old guy who got off three rounds with an identical gun in a bit over 7 seconds...

The sounds recording to be valid (which was the basis for the finding in the HOuse committee, the motorcycle had to be in a 10 ft. ciameter circle...it wasn't even close...

[William Seger]

48. Yeah, the 3 magic bullets theory is much better

An invisible person fired a magic bullet either from the trunk of the limo or from the street, upward into Kennedy's back -- it must have been magic because it penetrated about an inch and then disappeared completely. Meanwhile, someone else fired another magic disappearing bullet from the front into his throat. Then, some disappearing person fired another magic bullet from the grassy knoll to Kennedy's right front which somehow caused Kennedy's head to both snap forward and explode forward. It's still somewhat disputed whether this magic bullet also disappeared without causing any exit wound to the rear, or if it really did leave an exit wound that magically healed before the autopsy photos and x-rays could be made.

But anyway, the important thing is that single-bullet theory is just too ridiculous to be true. :crazy:

[Andyjunction]

111. BULLETS MADE OF ICE!!!

If all twelve of the bullets were made of ice then it makes perfect sense. You see, they melted afterwards leaving no trace and making it possible for them to plant the "magic bullet" on the stretcher. This technology was learned from the aliens who crashed at Roswell and were still living in the secret underground bunker at Area 51. Now it all makes sense doesn't it?

[Octafish]

164. Laugh all you want. The "ice bullet" was posited by Dr. James Hume...

... who conducted the JFK autopsy.

From HistoryMatters.com:

HOW FIVE INVESTIGATIONS INTO JFK’S MEDICAL/AUTOPSY EVIDENCE GOT IT WRONG

EXCERPT...

Kennedy’s first wound, his back wound, looks more like an entrance wound in the pictures than an exit wound because the edges of the would don’t gape outward. But then so, too, does his throat wound, and for the same reason. Both can’t be entrance wounds if there are no exit wounds, since any embedded bullets would have been picked up easily on the chest or neck X-rays, which are notable for the absence of bullets. So it (or they) must have exited somewhere. That is, unless the bullet(s) was/were extracted sometime between Dealey Plaza and Bethesda, and no autopsy  witnesses noted any wound in JFK’s body through which such a technically difficult retrieval could have been performed. Alternatively, if very improbably, the bullet(s) might have been some sort of self-dissolving missile(s), such as the “ice bullet” Humes had speculated about during the autopsy.

While a through-the-body-and-out hypothesis makes the most sense, there are problems aplenty with that theory. The Warren Commission and HSCA concluded that the first shot had struck in the back and passed on through JFK without hitting any bone. But in 1973 a pathology professor, John Nichols, MD, Ph.D., first pointed out that a straight line drawn between the supposed entrance wound in JFK’s back and the point of exit in the throat unavoidably passes directly through the hard bone of the spine (termed the “vertebral body” in anatomy textbooks).<334>

The reason is simple: Oswald’s alleged position was not only above and behind Kennedy, but also to his right – 9 degrees, 21 minutes to the right by Nichols’ calculations. That means the bullet coursed leftward by slightly less than 10 degrees as it traversed Kennedy’s chest. and to the right of Kennedy. Oswald’s alleged position was measured at about 17 degrees above JFK at the moment of the back shot. (Nichols puts the “depressed angle” at 20 degrees, 23 minutes. But subtracting the 3-degree down slope of the street, the angle is about 17 degrees.) Had the bullet followed a strait line, its passage through the vertebra would have badly mutilated the bullet, and the one in evidence is virtually undamaged.

CONTINUED...

http://www.history-matters.com/Scripts/dtSearch/dtisapi6.dll?cmd=getdoc&DocId=31&Index=D%3a%5chmsite%5csearch%5cHistory%20Matters%20Index&HitCount=2&hits=149+14a+&SearchForm=d%3a%5chmsite%5csearch%5csearch%5fform%2ehtm

[William Seger]

165. Duh...

My point was, if you call the single-bullet theory "ridiculous", then there doesn't seem to be a word in the English language to adequately describe the silliness of some of the competing "theories" -- well, except for one: that Oswald's first bullet hit Kennedy and his second bullet hit Connally. Contrary to what the conspiracists still insist, the single-bullet theory has never been "crucial" to the WC's main findings. It's just the one that makes the most sense.

Why? Because a bullet hitting Kennedy's back and exiting his throat in the positions shown in the autopsy photos would either have to hit Connally or it would have to hit somewhere inside the car, and there was no bullet or bullet hole found in the car. And if the bullet didn't solidly hit any bone going through Kennedy's neck, then it still would have plenty of energy when it hit Connally.

It ain't rocket science. All the hysterical arm-waving by the conspiricists will never change the perfectly common-sense view that the single-bullet theory is quite reasonable, given the actual geometry instead of the horseshit description given in Stone's movie.

There were at least 5 points of damage found in Kennedy's neck, including a slight nick on the vertebrae, all forming a perfectly straight line. A shot from the front would have had to been inside the car to make that line. The back wound looks like a typical entrance wound, and the buttoned collar and tie could have easily kept the neck wound from looking like a typical exit wound. Close examination shows that the shirt fibers were bent outward.

So what the hell is the big mystery here? You just don't need to be a ballistics expert to see that the single-bullet theory is not at all ridiculous. Which is not at all to say that it's necessarily the correct theory, of course. But any competing theory should at least account for all the evidence or show some credible reason -- not unsubstantiated speculation -- for believing that some of the evidence is dubious. And it would be nice if it at least made as much sense as the single-bullet theory. Leaving out some of the important facts and distorting others, then having to postulate disappearing ice bullets to get the resulting "theory" to make sense, is one of the things that make conspiracists look like a bunch of nuts.


By the way, CNN has a short article by one of the emergency room doctors: http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/11/21/jfk.physician/index.html

[Octafish]

169. Sorry. We can't all be geniuses like you.

Here's what I see: You agree with the turd J Edgar Hoover.

I agree with what I know.

[William Seger]

173. "I agree with what I know."

Isn't that a George Bush quote?

Anyway, you're much too kind; my point really was that there isn't any genius required to understand why the single-bullet theory "makes sense." All that's necessary is a knowledge of the facts.

But I'll say this again, then I'm outta this thread: That the theory "makes sense" doesn't necessarily mean it's "the truth", nor does it prove there was no conspiracy. It simply means that any alternate theory should at least make as much sense and not be contradicted by the "real" evidence. Sorry, but "ice bullets" from invisible shooters don't qualify, J. Edgar Hoover be damned.

[Octafish]

174. Ice bullets were brought up the lead JFK autopsy physician.

Most people familiar with the facts would recognized the name.

Regarding the "three bullet theory," the latest effort to support the Warren Commission, it still is wrong.

Even dummies like me know that.

[William Seger]

175. I think you mean Dr. Humes, not Hume...

... and he was certainly not the source of the "ice bullet" nonsense. As nearly as I can tell from a few quick Google searches, it may have originated with H. E. Livingstone's book, High Treason 2. Although one site claimed (without citation) that it was postulated by an FBI agent named O'Neill, who co-wrote the FBI's report on the autopsy, there doesn't seem to be any confirmation, and it's certainly not mentioned in that report.

But that report does say this:

On the basis of the latter two developments (i.e. the finding of the "magic bullet" on a stretcher at Parkland, and the examination of a piece of detached skull), Dr. HUMES stated that the pattern was clear that the one bullet had entered the President’s back and had worked its way out of the body during external cardiac massage and that a second high velocity bullet had entered the rear of the skull and had fragmentized prior to exit through the top of the skull.

So, at the time at least, Humes thought the bullet that hit Kennedy's back must have been the one found at the hospital, but he thought it had fallen out of Kennedy's back, not Connally's leg. However, in the official autopsy report, there are descriptions of three internal injuries linking the back and throat wounds in a straight line, which I mentioned.

[Octafish]

177. Thanks for the help, Seger. How 'bout some links?

Here's where Dr. HUMES talked about the ice bullet:

The Tell-Tale Back Wound

EXCERPT...

O'Neill stated that some discussion did occur concerning the disintegration of the bullet. A "general feeling" existed that a soft-nosed bullet struck JFK. In reference to the back wound, there was discussion that the bullet could have been a "plastic" type or an "Ice" .

And from ONeills signed affidavit:

I do not see how the bullets that entered below the shoulder in the back could have come out the front of the throat. During the interview on January 10, 1978, I disagreed with Dr. Boswell's depiction of the location of the back (thorax) wound which Dr. Boswell had drawn on a diagram during an interview with this Committee in the Fall of 1977. I do not recall anything about the tracheotomy incision that indicated a bullet had damaged the area. When shown the tracing of the tracheotomy, I had no recollection or comment concerning the apparent bullet wound perimeter. It was and is my opinion that the bullet which entered the back came out the back.

Some discussion did occur concerning the disintegration of the bullet. A general feeling existed that a soft-nosed bullet struck JFK. There was discussion concerning the back wound that the bullet could have been a "plastic" type or an "Ice" bullet, one which dissolves after contact. There was no real sense either way that the wounds were caused by the same kind of bullet.

CONTINUED...

http://www.webcom.com/~lpease/collections/assassinations/jfk/icebulls.htm

[William Seger]

179. Ah HA!

So it was O'Neill who started the "ice bullet" silliness in his affidavit to the HSCA, some 15 years after the fact. But... excuse me, where does he say that it was Humes who engaged in "some discussion," and where does he indicate that he or Humes or anyone else accepted that as a credible hypothesis? I'd take that ending sentence -- "There was no real sense either way that the wounds were caused by the same kind of bullet" -- only as a comment on the back wound versus the head wound, and directed at the issue of whether both bullets came from the same gun. In fact, in that same affidavit, O'Neill explicitly restates the opinion that I cited above from his original report in 1963: "It was and is my opinion that the bullet which entered the back came out the back."

Really, that isn't such a far-fetched theory, if it's considered in isolation of the other facts, and if we presume that something slowed the bullet down enough that it only had enough energy to penetrate a short distance. The Warren Commission concluded that Oswald's first bullet missed completely, perhaps because it hit a tree branch. Well, if there really weren't any evidence that the back wound connected to the throat wound, and that the throat wound was an exit wound, then perhaps the most plausible theory would be that the tree branch slowed down the bullet that hit Kennedy in the back, and Oswald's second bullet hit Connally.

But there is independent evidence that the throat wound was an exit wound: the shirt fibers around the front bullet hole were bent outward, not inward. And, in fact, the autopsy does indicate three addition points of damage in Kennedy's neck that connect the rear and front wounds in a straight line:

http://karws.gso.uri.edu/JFK/Issues_and_evidence/Single-Bullet_theory/Line_of_damage/Line_of_damage.html

<pong>

[Octafish]

181. So you take the word of J Edgar Hoover over the ER docs'?

Here's the President's shirt. The white elongated triangle points to the slit where the projectile passed. If this was an exit wound, there'd be a lot more than a few threads going outward.



OTOH: The ER doctors said they observed an entry wound in his throat. One physician said he the wound was clean enough to use for a trachaeostomy.

From Dr. Charles A. Crenshaw:

“The wounds to Kennedy’s head and throat that I examined were caused by bullets that struck him from the front, not the back, as the public has been led to believe,” says Crenshaw. When the first edition of this book was published in 1992, under the title JFK: Conspiracy of Silence, Crenshaw revealed what he never had to opportunity to tell the Warren Commission. In the aftermath, the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) called Crenshaw’s book “a fabrication.” But JAMA’s claim did not hold up in court and Crenshaw subsequently prevailed in a defamation suit against JAMA. In the process, a number of new medical disclosures and discoveries have emerged on the startling medical cover-up of the JFK assassination. 

http://www.paraview.com/crenshaw/

The Warren Commission did not want to hear what Dr. Crenshaw had to say. Why? Because his testimony didn't agree with what LBJ, Allen Dulles, J Edgar Hoover and other conservatives wanted it to show.

My question to you, a guy who says he doesn't like conservatives in his sig line: Why do you agree with all these conservatives regarding the circumstances of JFK's murder?

[Minstrel Boy]

182. and not just Crenshaw:

Dr. Charles Carrico, who saw the throat wound before the tracheotomy was performed over it, described the wound as a "penetrating wound" in his November 22 medical report.

On the day of the assassination, Dr. Malcolm Perry, the surgeon who performed the tracheotomy, said twice on national television that the throat wound was an entrance wound. When interviewed a short time later, he was asked about the report that the alleged sole assassin fired from a building which was to the rear of the limousine. Dr. Perry replied by suggesting the President must have been turned toward the building when the bullet struck his throat.

Parkland Hospital was the trauma centre in Dallas. The medical staff saw bullet wounds all the time. Did 20+ professionals get it uniformly wrong?

[William Seger]

187. Baloney!

The four principle doctors who treated Kennedy at Parkland don't even recall seeing Crenshaw in the room. A fifth (McClelland) says Crenshaw was in the room but:

Since Dr. Crenshaw died a few years ago, he says, "God rest his spirit, but (Crenshaw's book) was embroidered." Some parts, he says, were "an utter fabrication."

http://www.dallasnews.com/opinion/columnists/rpederson/stories/110903dnedipederson.c0ef8.html

And I'd be willing to bet that you already know that McAdams has documented some of those fabrications:
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/crenshaw.htm

McClellend still believes that throat wound was an entrance wound, btw, so he would be a far more credible witness for you to cite than Crenshaw, since he actually worked on Kennedy. But McClelland doesn't accept Crenshaw's claim that the back of Kennedy's head was blown away; he believes the lethal head shot was from the rear.

You could also cite Dr. Perry, who (unlike Crenshaw) also actually worked on Kennedy, and who gave the first press conference, in which he stated that the throat wound was from the front, thereby triggering the conspiracy hysteria. But at that time, Perry wasn't even aware of the back wound. At his WC testimony, Perry stated that the wound could have been either an entrance wound or an exit wound, and he agree that the single-bullet theory was at least plausible.

The point is, the doctors at Parkland were trying to save the President's life. They did not make any attempt to conduct a forensic investigation. While Kennedy was in the ER, he wasn't even turned over.

The simple reason that Perry and McClelland (and perhaps Crenshaw, if he actually saw the wound, which isn't all that certain given his general lack of credibilty) thought that the throat wound was an entrance wound was that it was a small, fairly round hole, whereas exit wounds are typically (but not necessarily) large and messy. That's simply because when a bullet exits a body, it is accompanied by a pressure wave that can rip open the exit hole in the skin and blow out a lot of tissue. But the simple reason that Kennedy's throat wound was small and clean was that it was right at the buttoned shirt collar and tie, which contained the pressure-wave damage. The proof that it's an exit wound is that the fibers around the hole in the shirt are bent outward, just as the fibers around the hole in the back of the shirt are bent inward.

Concerning your comment about conservatives, I only recently became aware that some people consider assassination conspiracies to be a political issue, and I still find it too bizarre a concept to comment on. As far as I'm concerned, it's just a critical thinking issue, and I'm a little embarrassed by the fact that so many DUers believe there was more than one shooter. As I'll say one more time, the larger conspiracy issue is a different matter, but there just isn't any credible evidence (including the so-called acoustical evidence) of a second shooter in Dealey Plaza.

[Octafish]

188. You're still wrong! McAdams is a BFEE lickspittle.

Nice links and a great report on what happened at Parkland. The neurosurgeon Grossman, for example, also contends he saw evidence of a shot from behind. He reported recently that he found a small bullet hole in the back of the head, and that the right side of the President's head was blown out, seeming to indicate a shot from behind.

Regarding McAdams: It seems he has an agenda that is the same as J Edgar Hoover. That turd disregards everybody and everything that does not support Oswald the Lone Nut. Assassination researchers have accused him of misidentifying himself in order to disrupt various conferences and events.

Regarding political assassination. Where've you been? Ever hear of the Brothers Gracchi?

Regarding Crenshaw: The late doctor stuck to his story since he published his book in the early 1990s. After the Lone Nut doctors came down hard on him in JAMA, Crenshaw sued and won a defamation lawsuit against JAMA for misrepresenting his reportage of what happened in Dallas 40 years ago.

BTW: Crenshaw did take a call from LBJ, too.

[ramblin_dave]

14. More than Dealy Plaza needs to be explained

There have been other studies, including computer graphics etc, to show that the official account of what happened in Dealy Plaza COULD have happened. But there are lots of other questions that need to be answered, such as:

1. Allegations of doctored autopsy photos and testimony of Parkland doctors who claim a front impact wound.

2. Claims the limo was sent secretly to Ford to replace windshield that allegedly had a front impact bullet hole.

3. Claims that Ruby knew Oswald and that Oswald was involved in government plot to kill Castro.

There are others but I for one will be looking for more than some computer simulation or other efforts of what could have happened.

[Very Good Dem]

15. Should be interesting

but it won't change any minds.

One of the nice things about believing in a conspiracy is that one need not prove a case or tie up any loose ends, but can pick and choose what "facts" to believe and what "facts" to discard. If information comports with a conspiracy, it need not be consistent or reliable - it's just accepted. If information is inconsistent with a conspiracy, it's dismissed as untrue, doctored or coerced and, thus, as further proof of a conspiracy.

[bobbieinok]

16. The question for me

How could Oswald be shot by Ruby in a police station surrounded by policemen?

The result?? No trial. No one ever has to PROVE in a law court that Oswald killed JFK.

When I started to think about that, I started to wonder.

[Very Good Dem]

18. Let's see . . .

That would mean the Dallas Police Department was involved in some way. So, we have the CIA, LBJ, the FBI, the Mafia, Castro, anti-Castro Cubans, Richard Nixon, the Secret Service, Ford Motor Company, George Bush, the Dallas PD, and Lord knows who else, all involved in the assassination and coverup.

With all of those people and entities - many of whom have conflicting interests and can't stand each other - participating in the crime of the century, it's incredible that it didn't leak before now, isn't it?

[bobbieinok]

25. So it's not strange at all that all those policemen couldn't protect

one of the most important prisoners in US history??????

[donotpassgo]

29. no...look at all the press that was there.

It was a free for all. No one went through any metal detectors. If you had a camera or snap brimmed hat, you could get inside that police station. There were few if ANY restrictions on the press.

[Very Good Dem]

45. People forget

that 1963 was a very different time. It wasn't even a federal crime to kill a president, so, unfortunately, Dallas Police had jurisdiction over the assassination. And they didn't know what the hell they were doing.

Many of the security safeguards we have in place evolved as a result of the Kennedy assassination and other incidents after that day. But, at the time, things just weren't done that way. The fact that security was lax 40 years ago is NOT evidence of a conspiracy - it's just an indication of a much more innocent time.

[aquart]

55. Innocent?

Oh my lord, you bought that?

The time was not "innocent." It was secretive. Secret lynchings. Secret operations. Secret prostitution. Secret child molesting. Secret adultery. Secret homosexuality. Secret covenants in housing. Secret quotas in education. Secret sweetheart deals between unions and management. Secret alcoholism. Secret drug addiction.

Lying was a day to day routine. Men never showed anything but strength. Women ate before going to dinner. Never said their feet hurt. Etc. Etc.

Your innocence was a determined ignorance which we are doing our best to jettison.

It would be nice to lose the determined ignorance over the JFK assassination too.

[Very Good Dem]

73. You totally misinterpreted my post

by "innocent time" I meant a time in which presidents were not shot in their convertibles while riding through American cities.

Such a thing had never happened before and people just didn't imagine that such a thing would occur. THAT's what I mean by a more innocent time.

Just like until 1981, presidents still walked out of buildings and crossed sidewalks to get to their limousines parked at the curb. The fact that Reagan was out in the open when he got shot and that, since then, presidents rarely are as exposed to people who haven't been through a metal detector, is not evidence that Reagan's security people were somehow involved in a plot to kill him. Things just worked differently then.

[hlthe2b]

128. Innocent? What about Lincoln, McKinley, Garfield assasinations

Granted they weren't riding in cars, but I don't quite understand the naivete, given a history of three successful assasinations during the century...

[Retrograde]

163. It's such a small place

That's what struck me when I first visited Dealy Plaza: the place is small. (I've been to all the presidential assassination sites -didn't plan to, just turned out that way). After hearing for years about all the people on the Grassy Knoll and all I was expecting someplace enormous. It's not much more than about 2 short blocks square. It's been over 30 years since I fired a rifle, but my thoughts - and those of my collegue, who does shoot regularly - were "not a hard shot at all". Remember that he was shooting downwards as well, and could track his target with minimal interference.

As I mentioned in another thread, what struck me when I saw Kennedy in a parade as a child was how close I could get to him and his limo. It wasn't like Bubble Boy Bush in those days: when the president went out in public the president went out in public.

In my world, people don't always act rationally under stress, and Kennedy's assassination was a major stressful event in its time - it had been over 60 years since the last president was assassinated. Eyewitnesses stories don't match, time lines can be off, some people panic, rumors spread - and officials sometimes act by the seat of their pants instead of by the book. As much as I like conspiracy theories, and I can go on about why I think the Lincoln assassination was one, IMHO Kennedy was killed by a lucky shot. I find that easier to believe than that the FBI and CIA that couldn't find the Unabomber, the Antrax mailer, or the advance warnings of the Irani revolution can carry off a wide-spread 40-year conspiracy.

linda

[directinfection]

157. in my opinion

Whether or not oswald worked alone, clearly the government tried to cover something up. The idea that oswald was shot like that is ridiculous. clearly they wanted to pin it on him and ask questions later. unfortunately we never got the answers.

[jsw_81]

107. Don't forget the KGB!

They were in on it too. :eyes:

[donotpassgo]

21. Jack Ruby was at that Police Station ALL the time.

n/t

[Terwilliger]

170. Jack Ruby met Oswald LONG before Nov 24, 1963

makes me think conspiracy...how could you not think otherwise?

[Minstrel Boy]

28. then can you please answer for me

why Oswald was impersonated in Mexico City in the weeks before the assassination, making incriminating calls to the KGB's chief of assassinations for the Western hemisphere?

Hoover told Johnson on November 23 the tapes were not of Oswald. LBJ asked "Have you established any more about the visit to the Soviet Embassy in Mexico in September," an event of no little interest to the inner circles of government, Hoover replied "No, that's one angle that's very confusing for this reason. We have up here the tape and the photograph of the man who was at the Soviet Embassy, using Oswald's name. The picture and the tape do not correspond to this man's voice, nor to his appearance. In other words, it appears that there is a second person who was at the Soviet Embassy down there." In other words, an imposter had implicated Oswald in a relationship with Soviet agents, less than two months before the assassination.

The CIA has lied about the tapes for decades. Said they were routinely destroyed before the assassination. But FBI documents have been uncovered which detail how at least two of the tapes were listened to after the assassination by FBI agents familiar with Oswald’s voice, who said it wasn't Oswald. And the Assassination Records Review Board found CIA documents in which the CIA itself states that some of the tapes were reviewed after the assassination, contradicting its long-held public position.

So please, use coincidence theory to explain the impersonation of Oswald in Mexico City.

[donotpassgo]

34. I don't have to...The onus is on you to prove how the fake Oswald

means a Second gunman???? I could just say 'identity theft' and that leaves you with no place to go without super spin.

[Minstrel Boy]

37. For God's sakes, think:

a conspiracy doesn't require a second gunman. That's another argument. What a conspiracy requires is a plot to frame Oswald.

Now please, explain for me why the CIA has tapes of an Oswald impersonator in Mexico city weeks before the assassination, calling a KGB officer?

http://history-matters.com/frameup.htm

[donotpassgo]

40. What does that prove?

OK....what does it prove? Someone used Oswalds identity in Mexico? So?

The conspiracy theorists NEED a second gunman. But a single gunman is plausible so you move on to this claptrap.

"Now please, explain for me why the CIA has tapes of an Oswald impersonator in Mexico city weeks before the assassination, calling a KGB officer?"

No. You explain. Why does the CIA have tapes of a fake Oswald? What do you have besides cojecture?

[Minstrel Boy]

44. "conspiracy theorists" need nothing but a conspiracy,

and I think the smokiest smoking gun for one is that Oswald was impersonated in Mexico City in the Fall of '63, making suspicious calls to the Soviet and Cuban embassies, and that the CIA tried to pass them off as legitimate.

What are the implications? Well, if there was no conspiracy, who would impersonate the "lone nut" Oswald just weeks before the murder, calling upon the KGB's assassination chief?

An explosive trail of false leads was being laid, leading from Dealey Plaza to the Kremlin. But what were the implications of that? Potentially, nuclear war. And so the establishment, like Earl Warren and the rest, for "the good of the nation," were drawn into promoting the official story that Oswald had acted alone, because the alternative was potentially a nuclear catastrophe.

"Why does the CIA have tapes of a fake Oswald?" That's the question, isn't it?

http://www.jfklancer.com/backes/newman/newman_1.html

[Octafish]

62. A single gunman is not plausible.

There are too many wounds, bullet markings, photographic evidence, sound recording evidence, and circumstantial evidince to indicate more than three shots in 6–8 seconds shot from behind. The Zapruder film shows the President was shot from the front.

JFK's clothing indicates he was shot low in the right shoulder blade, yet the Magic Bullet is supposed to rise up through his chest and emerge in a perfectly straight line through his throat, shirt collar and tie and continue at a high velocity on yet another trajectory through Connally's back and out his chest through his wrist and stop in his thigh, from where it fell onto a hospital cart — one upon which neither JFK or Connally used.

Not to bring up any unlikely conspiracy, let alone ballistic science fiction, at precisely the same time journalist Seth Kantor ran into Jack Ruby at Parkland Memorial Hospital. Another person saw Ruby, as well.

Regarding the second Oswald in Mexico City: Identify theft is a good one. So who stole his identity at the car dealership in New Orleans where a number of trucks were purchased using his name? Or who stole his identity at the car dealership in Dallas and took a car and a salesman on a death-defying high speed test drive? Or who went to the gun range and shot his gun and his mouth off, stating soon people would hear of him? Or how about "Oswaldo" who met the intellectual daughter of a prominent Cuban American? There's never enough identity theft.

[Andyjunction]

89. ballistics

All the evidence shows Kennedy was hit twice and Connally once. All of it. End of story.

The Zapruder film shows Kennedy and Connaly being hit by the same bullet just as they emerge from behind the Stemmons freeway sign. That's one bullet.

We all know about the other bullet.

[Octafish]

92. If you want to believe J Edgar Hoover, be my guest.

Regarding the evidence: Gaeton Fonzi, who investigated the JFK murder for the House Select Committee on Assassinations in the 1970s, said the physical evidence ALONE is proof of conspiracy. President Kennedy's jacket and shirt show he was struck in the back, low in the right shoulder blade. The shirt and tie show a bullet entry wound, the same the ER doctors and nurses reported the day of the assassination — and for decades after. The Zapruder film, BTW, shows the President was struck from a bullet coming from somwhere in front of the car, because his head is struck and his body moves ALONG THE DIRECTION of the projectile's flight, confirming that the laws of physics, and logic, were not suspended during 40 years ago.

Let me ask you a question: Why all the anger at anybody who disagrees with the Warren Commission? Are you Jerry Ford?

[Andyjunction]

95. not at all correct

The hole in Kennedy's jacket and shirt are consistent with his clothes being bunched up behind him. This is perfectly natural and can clearly be seen in dozens and dozens of photos from just before the killing.

The front of the shirt and tie showed a hole. It was the exit wound. If you're right and I'm wrong then Kennedy had two bullets still inside his body instead of one passing through him completely. You're wrong on this.

The spray of blood and brain matter from Kennedy's head are far more indicative of the bullet's path then is the subsequent reaction of Kennedy's body. But, if you watch the Zapruder film, it clearly shows the head pitching forward at the instant the shot comes. It then moves back and to the left but not as a direct result of the impact.

A shot from the grassy knoll would have caused Kennedy's head to explode on the other side, behind Jackie's head. The big explosion is where the bullet exits, not where it enters.

[Octafish]

141. Wow! It's like having my own FBI Agent!

Oh, boy! I must be in the company of a recent Quantico graduate.



Does this look like an exit mark to you?



This must have been bunched up over the level of his throat to come out the other side, huh?



Here's the President's jacket, the hole in which lines up with the shirt, meaning that it wasn't bunched up.

Still, if this isn't what it appears to you: Congratulations! You are now qualified for Special Agent! I really am honored.

[Andyjunction]

144. Those photos prove my point

Look at any of the dozens and dozens of photos of JFK from just before the assassination. They ALL show his shirt and jacket bunched up behind him. The collar on his jacket is level with the bottom of his ear which places the entrance wound high on his back at the base of the neck.

This photo was taken about 3 seconds before the bullet hit.

[Octafish]

155. McAdams does make a good case with what he presents...

...It's just that the Professor ignores most everything that doesn't fit with his conclusion. Real scholarship, in the tradition of the Warren Commission.

BTW: It's nothing personal with you, Andyjunction. I don't cut the WC any slack, nor its mouthpieces like McAdams.

[directinfection]

158. bunched up theory?

hahahahahah.

the bunched up theory now?

give me a break.

there is this theory in science, you always go with the most logical assumption first. it seems to me, your trying a bit too hard..we all just have to imagine that this bullet went through extrodinary feats..OR we could just obey the laws of physics and go with the most simpliest explanation. your describing all these crazy variables that *could* have made the bullet do all these crazy, never seen before moves. while of course, there could always be the chance, the odds are against it. why not just use common sense here? I don't care how great of a shot oswald is, NO ONE is that luckly. i heard not even a professional sharpshooter could make the shot

[Andyjunction]

159. actually

I try my hardest to avoid speculation. It's not always possible especially when trying to refute other theories which aren't really based on actual evidence. But you will notice that my arguments are based on actual photographic evidence and the established positions of Kennedy and Connally in relation to each other in the limo. I don't argue points based on what somebody said or what somebody thought they saw or heard or third party hearsay.

Hocum's Razor is what you're talking about I believe. My position follows it much more than the conspiracy theories which are so confusing and contradictory as to be ridiculous.

edit: Occam's Razor- one should not increase, beyond what is necessary, the number of entities required to explain anything. :hi:

[PAMod]

122. Photographic evidence shows JFK's jacket "bunched up" in the back...

during the motorcade.

Autopsy photos show the bullet wound higher on his actual back.

[Octafish]

143. You mean, like this?

It's strange to believe that an entry hole so far down the back of the shirt can line up in such a way that the bullet could go out just underneath the President's Adam's apple and then change trajectory to go through Gov Connally all those time and emerge unscathed on a hospital gurney that had not been used to transport either man. Must be a thousand-to-one odds, huh?

That shirt must've been really bunched up. I'd like to know where you Would you mind showing me a picture, or giving me a link to it? TIA.

[PAMod]

172. You know, that Warren Commission drawing is terrible, and...

an easy target for the detractors. The autopsy photos show that the wound was a bit farther down on his back and also show that JFK's shoulders & neck are of a much different build than the drawing - the top of his back is much higher than his adams apple.

<http://www.zimmermanjfk.com/frontmenu_000014.htm>

This page (good luck, there must be a ton of traffic today, it opens slow) shows some pics of JFK in the Dallas motorcade on 11/22/63 with a bunched up jacket. I have at least 40 books on JFK & the Kennedy's and there are pictures in almost all of them where he has a bunched jacket - through out his adulthood, not just November '63.

Regarding the ridiculous assertion that the bullet had to slow down & change directions, etc., and that the bullet was pristine, etc., and found by a janitor, etc.; that all has been knocked down repeatedly.

Listen, I'm not saying Oswald did it without help, or even that he pulled the trigger, but JFK & Gov. Connally were wounded from the rear, by that crappy gun that LHO bought through the mail.

[Andyjunction]

84. Your turn

How can you have a conspiracy if there was no shot from the grassy knoll and all three shots were fired from that sixth floor window of the book depository? Without those two things all of the theories fall apart. The only thing that makes sense is Oswald being a lone nut.

[Minstrel Boy]

94. nuh uh

I'm convinced, of course, there were multiple shooters (please, do have a go at refuting the latest acoustic evidence: http://www.forensic-science-society.org.uk/Thomas.pdf; http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A56560-2001Mar25?language=printer ), but that's an ambush. A conspiracy can exist without one. For instance, though I'm unfamiliar with the facts of the Lincoln assassination, I know the case is made that John Wilkes Booth did not act alone, but as part of a broader conspiracy.

I'm just trying to keep terms straight here. An ambush is what we're talking about when we talk about the shooting event. But it's just one facet of a conspiracy to kill the president, and conspiracies to commit murder can exist without one. So give some regard to the evidence for conspiracy that exists outside of those six seconds. It's not all about bullet trajectories and head snaps.

[Andyjunction]

97. You may be right

But if you are right it means what? There was a second shooter who fired one shot, it missed completely and he got away. Something like that?

Maybe there were five shooters AND Lee Harvey Oswald as the lone nut. All the trained assassins from across the world missed their shots but Oswald hit with two of his three. I could at least acknowledge the minute possiblity in that.

[Minstrel Boy]

99. What it means is that in conspiracies to commit murder,

the identities of the contract killers are of less significance than the identities of those who ordered the hits.

How many shooters? Where were their nests? Who were they? Important questions obviously, but not as important as Who were they serving? And that question is best answered by looking beyond Dealey Plaza.

[Andyjunction]

100. er...

It doesn't seem like you have any answers to any of those questions either. Just more and more questions that can't be answered, more and more theories that cancel each other out and nothing that comes together even remotely.

It's really hard to argue against a theory that doesn't exist.

[Minstrel Boy]

117. er, etc

What are you talking about?

Answers? Forty years of smoking guns and an open case. It's you lone nutters who insist "CASE CLOSED - WE HAVE THE ANSWERS - STOP ASKING QUESTIONS!"

[Andyjunction]

145. Not asking that

By all means continue to ask questions. I don't have all the answers but am at least willing to answer ones I can. But it's a little like arguing with the Flat Earth Society when they won't accept any scientific evidence. They just keep saying, "Look, I can clearly see that the earth is flat, just look at it! Every day I see the sun move around the earth. That proves my point!"

[Minstrel Boy]

147. please, don't talk about "flat earthers" who won't accept evidence

when you have no time for the acoustic signature of a gunshot from the knoll, the AARB's finding that two different brains were examined (one supporting rear entry, and one front), the Oswald impersonation in Mexico City, and on and on and on.

This isn't alien abductions or Elvis resurrections we're talking about.

[Andyjunction]

149. I'll address all your points though- here

The acoustic evidence was all based on the officer with the hot mike being in one very specific spot on the road just before the left turn onto Elm. If he wasn't at that exact point then the acoustic evidence had absolutely no merit. As it happens, the officer was later proven to have been almost a full block away from that point. Photos and film from people OTHER than Zapruder show exactly where he was.

The evidence of two brains is really just evidence of many other brains remembering things in different ways. As you must know, eye-witness testimony is some of the most unreliable testimony available. But even if you're right it doesn't prove anything. It's barely even suspicious. Hats won't hang from that.

Oswald being impersonated. I'll admit I don't know that much about this. But, again, even if it is true it doesn't indicate a conspiracy to kill Kennedy. I'll go see what I can learn about this. You could help me out with some details and what you think it means.

[Minstrel Boy]

150. and right back at ya:

Have you read the latest on the acoustic evidence? Check this out:
http://www.forensic-science-society.org.uk/Thomas.pdf Forensic scientists rebut the assertion that the signature of a shot from the knoll could have, by happenstance, turn up on the dictabelt.

The "two brains" has nothing to do with recollection. It has to do with gross discrepencies in the weight and measurement recorded of the specimens. The AARB would not have said there was a 90-95% chance that there were two brains and that the evidence had been tampered with otherwise.

Afraid I don't have more time to spend on this today, but click around here for some info on Oswald and Mexico City:
http://history-matters.com/frameup.htm

[Andyjunction]

152. Looked at the .pdf

I see that their tests relied on placing the officer at the corner of Elm where he was believed to have been. As I said before, he was, in fact, almost a full block away. Therefore the test results are meaningless. Nothing new here.

[Andyjunction]

151. Found this:

Here's a paragraph from the HSCA in 1976, the commitee which finally acknowledged there was probably some kind of conspiracy. That conclusion was based on the now discredited audio evidence.

This regarding Oswald and Mexico City:
---------------------------------------
Finally, on the basis of an extensive file review and detailed testimony by present and former CIA officials and employees, the committee determined that CIA headquarters never received a recording of Oswald's voice. The committee concluded, therefore, that the information in the November 23, 1963, letterhead memorandum was mistaken and did not provide a basis for concluding that there had been an Oswald imposter.
---------------------------------------

I think the reason I don't know much about this is that there's no real evidence and has long since been proven untrue, besides being meaningless even if it were true.

[PAMod]

124. You are actually saying what I've been hinting at here for days

There may have been a conspiracy, but Dealey Plaza will not help us find it.

There may have been a conspiracy, but if so, it was (is?), most likely, behind the scenes.

JFK is dead, Oswald probably shot him (his gun certainly did) and the hard part is tying Oswald to any alleged co-conspirators.

[newyawker99]

41. Hi Very Good Dem!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[Very Good Dem]

46. thanks n/t

[Kira]

17. The history channel

is showing "the men who killed Kennedy" I saw it last night and they had credible people saying that it definitely was two shooters. It was very interesting.

[grannylib]

20. No way to prove it, when so much evidence points in the other direction

obvious conspiracy and cover up of same.
Ratings game.

[Sterling]

22. Anyone who believes the official story.

Is a fucking moron.

[donotpassgo]

36. And anyone who believes a conspiracy theory because they

saw JFK and has no scientific evidence pointing to a cohesive and plausible explanation is a douchebag blowing smoke out of his ass to make him/herself feel superior.

[Octafish]

68. You don't know who you're talking to, or you'd edit that.

Sterling knows more about the Kennedys first hand than anyone you've ever talked to, obviously.

Regarding conspiracies: Those who dismiss them out of hand are just as bad as people who believe them without knowing the facts. Both perspectives are ignorant.

People who do know the facts, like Sterling and most DUers, know that the Warren Commission and its single bullet theory are cover-ups for reality of what happened 40 years ago in Dallas — the overthrow of the US government.

[Minstrel Boy]

76. A remark that bears repeating, Octafish:

Regarding conspiracies: Those who dismiss them out of hand are just as bad as people who believe them without knowing the facts. Both perspectives are ignorant.

Nothing, even doubt, should be taken on faith. And coincidence theory can be every bit as faith-driven as conspiracy. Neither are informed philosophies. I like what conspiracy researcher John Judge says:

"Until we know, we cannot act. And if we act on rumor and impulse then we are no less a slave than those who live in the denial that the propaganda machines promote. So, be cynical and question things, but be analytical and scientific so you can approach the truth when you speak. Three truths don't make a fourth just by mentioning them. All lies, in fact, depend on having elements of the truth in them for verismilitude as its called. Read, don't repeat what you last heard. And if you are going to be more than a theorist, then give conspiracy the respect it deserves, and prove it. Good hunting, and always come clean." http://www.ratical.org/ratville/JFK/JohnJudge/notAllCequal.html

[FlaGranny]

23. The evidence against a conspiracy mostly

comes from the Warren Commission and those who agreed with their findings. The trouble is, most of the witnesses to the events that day, had a good part of their testimony ignored and discounted by the WC. Nearly every one of them disagrees with the Warren Commission. Filmed interviews with those witnesses after the WC have shed light on that fact. The Committee on Assassinatin (? Name) came up with findings at odds with the WC. The witnesses testified to events as they saw them and the Warren Commission interpreted their testimony to fit their desired conclusions.

But, the one thing that convinces me that someone else was involved is the emergency room physicians, surgeons, and nurses at the hospital, people who deal in trauma and gunshot wounds. They reported TWO ENTRANCE WOUNDS FROM THE FRONT and the extremely large EXIT wound 4 inches in diameter, that extended from the top of his head to the bottom of his ear and from his ear to the middle of the back of his head. How could those emergency room physicians and surgeons have misinterpreted that?? This one fact totally negates the magic bullet theory for me. I can't understand how the reports of the doctors who originally saw the wounds could be ignored. I can only assume it is the "ostrich syndrome conspiracy."

[bobbieinok]

24. didn't some of this 'mysteriously' disappear?????

Wasn't there something about autopsy material disappearing?? the brain disappearing???

[Minstrel Boy]

26. JFK, the man with two brains

The Washington Post, Nov 10, 1998: "Archive Photos Not of JFK's Brain":

Doctors who conducted the autopsy on President John F. Kennedy may have performed two brain examinations in the days following his assassination, possibly of two different brains, a staff report for the Assassinations Records Review Board said.

...

The central contention of the report is that brain photographs in the Kennedy records are not of Kennedy's brain and show much less damage than Kennedy sustained when he was shot in Dallas and brought to Parkland Hospital there on Nov. 22, 1963. The doctors at Parkland told reporters then that they thought Kennedy was shot from the front and not from behind as the Warren Commission later concluded.

"I am 90 to 95 percent certain that the photographs in the Archives are not of President Kennedy's brain," Horne, a former naval officer, said in an interview. "If they aren't, that can mean only one thing -- that there has been a coverup of the medical evidence." Horne contends that the damage to the second brain reflected a shot from behind. He says the first brain was Kennedy's and reflected a shot from the front.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/national/longterm/jfk/jfk1110.htm

[Andyjunction]

93. that would be suspicious, except...

You can see on the Zapruder film that the back of Kennedy's head was not blown out. It was the area above and just forward of his right ear. So there's that... and it isn't subject to interpretation as is memory. It's on film. Eighteen frames a second, each worth a thousand words.

[Minstrel Boy]

96. "would be"? Two different brains isn't suspicious enough for you?

One 1/3 blown away, indictating a shot from the front, and another virtually intact, indicating a shot from the rear? This isn't enough to make you say WTF? And this was a staff report of the Assassinations Records Review Board, not a "conspiracy theorist."

Douglas Horne, the board's chief analyst for military records:

"I am 90 to 95 percent certain that the photographs in the Archives are not of President Kennedy's brain. If they aren't, that can mean only one thing -- that there has been a coverup of the medical evidence." Horne contends that the damage to the second brain reflected a shot from behind. He says the first brain was Kennedy's and reflected a shot from the front
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/national/longterm/jfk/jfk1110.htm

[Andyjunction]

109. well...

The people who examined Kennedy's head at Parkland Hospital had to make assumptions about what they were looking at. They had a human head which had been shot causing great trauma to it. It's as if someone shot a pumpkin, then gave it to you and asked what you thought happened to it.

On the other hand, we have the actual incident on film. The pumpkin actually being shot at 18 frames per second. That is something the medical examiners did not have.

It's there for all of us to see and you can't just ignore it. It shows us exactly where the shots came from. If there were other shots, it would show them too. But it doesn't.

As I said before, a picture is worth a thousand words. And this is eighteen pictures per second.

edit: By the way, it wasn't two different brains. The x-rays show exactly the same thing we see on the Zapruder film. It's believed that RFK had the actual brain and other physical evidence destroyed. He may have been trying to avoid making a circus side-show out of his brother's remains. That seems very reasonable to me but history has shown his attempts to have been futile.

[Minstrel Boy]

115. well, no

The AARB found a 90-95% likelihood that JFK's brain was switched. And the x-rays have a whole bunch of other problems.

But apparantly nothing anyone can say matters, because you're the best witness in the case, since you have seen the Zapruder film.

[Andyjunction]

146. Haven't you seen it?

Do you completely discount the entire Zapruder film? That's an honest question. Does it have any value at all in your mind?

[Minstrel Boy]

148. of course

and I have high-quality copies of the frames, sprockets and all, and I've looked at it quite closely. I also have the Nix and the Muchmore, which reveal a lot in their own right. I don't discount the film, but my reading of it obviously differs from yours.

[Sapphocrat]

166. Then can you (or anyone) tell me why...

...Jackie was climbing over the back of the trunk to retrieve pieces of the President's skull and brain matter?

I'm not looking for a fight. I really want to know how JFK's brains got splattered all over the trunk of the limo if the head shot came from behind.

I am not a physics major, nor am I a ballistics or forensics expert; I'm just one hell of a shooter, who's fired more longarms (and pistols) than most people will ever see in their lives. And while I've never blown a rifle slug through a skull (human or otherwise), in my experience with everything from watermelons to televisions to discarded motorcycle helmets, the "debris" flies out the back of the target, away from the shooter -- regardless of distance.

Try it with a .30-.30, .30-06, or even a piddly little .22 long. Heck, try it with handguns. Try it with a lousy BB gun. I have.

Oh, one more thing about rifle slugs: I've never retrieved a spent slug that wasn't flattened or distorted considerably more than that pretty little piece of lead they keep telling us is The Bullet, no matter how "soft" the target. Something has to stop the bullet, be it bone or auto frame -- and when it is stopped dead-on, it flattens. And if it grazes something before it is stopped, it is misshapen, and then flattened.

And I've fired a lot of rounds in my time. And picked up plenty. (You think ammo is cheap? You're smart to retrieve the lead as well as the casings, for reloading.)

No, I was never in the military, but yes, I'm certain I could get off three shots from a bolt-action in five and a half seconds, and I could probably hit a target at 200 yards twice, if not three times (if you don't take trees, moving targets, or general nervousness into consideration). But I have no issue with Oswald's marksmanship or nerve. I just don't believe all the shots came from behind the motorcade -- and Jackie's sprint across the back of the car has much (but not all) to do with my doubt of the "offical" story.

By the way, here's a short article that should interest everyone involved in this debate, written by a Texas Monthly reporter who also once believed in the lone-guman theory:

Looking again at the evidence, I'm convinced that the fatal head shot came from the direction of the grassy knoll. More than two dozen doctors and nurses who worked on the president at Parkland Hospital remember that the back of the president's head was blown away. That sounds like an exit wound, not an entrance wound. In the Zapruder film you can see clearly a shot striking the right front of the president's head and driving him back. Motorcycle cops, Secret Service agents, even Jacqueline Kennedy were positive about the rear head wound. One of the most haunting images was of Mrs. Kennedy climbing onto the trunk of the limousine to retrieve parts of her husband's skull and brains, which she tried to push back into place.

The Warren Commission and later the HSCA decided that the eyewitnesses were mistaken, because their recollections conflicted with the official autopsy photographs and x-rays. What neither of these investigative bodies told us was that the official photographs also conflicted with each other. X-rays show the whole right side of the president's face—including the eye socket—blasted away, but in autopsy photographs the president's face is unmarked. Nobody has ever explained this amazing contradiction, though G. Robert Blakey, the counsel for the HSCA, tried. "Damage could have been done to the skull without ripping the face off," Blakey reassured me.

Two years ago, on the twenty-fifth anniversary of Kennedy's murder, Dr. Robert McClelland and two other doctors who worked on the president at Parkland were permitted to examine this evidence for the first time at the National Archives, where it has been locked away from a prying public. What they saw left them incredulous. In testimony before the Warren Commission all three had described a massive hole in the back of the president's head—one of McClelland's most vivid memories was of looking into Kennedy's skull cavity—and now, a quarter of a century later, official photographs showed the back of the head so pristine that the president might have been in a barber chair waiting for a trim. McClelland, a professor of surgery at Southwestern Medical Center in Dallas, said, "I don't understand it, unless there has been some attempt to cover up the nature of the wounds." Blakey also had an explanation for this. "The doctors are just wrong, that's all," he said.

And do take note of the mention of the Ruby-Oswald connection ("I phoned Beverly not long ago and asked if she remembered. "Sure do," she said. Ruby introduced him as 'my friend Lee from the CIA.'").

[Andyjunction]

180. I think so

You can see a halo of brain matter all around Kennedy's head at the moment of impact, freeze the frame. Some bits and pieces flew in every direction. But there's simply no denying that the vast majority of it is moving in an upward and forward direction.

[spanone]

47. Geez why didn't he tell us years ago????

my ass

[Minstrel Boy]

49. I hope people are spending their time more wisely tonight by watching

Frontline's 3-hour "Who Was Lee Harvey Oswald?" documentary.

Lots of good, hard information. (Computer simulation free, too!)

[OKNancy]

51. SO far I'm enjoying the ABC show

Well researched, and well done.

[TruthIsAll]

52. PBS seems to be reciting Warren Commission fiction about Oswald...

Iv'e seen only 20 minutes of it, but it's all crap.

Posner. McMillan. Bullshit.

[Minstrel Boy]

54. Yes, there's that, but they also featured

a rare interview with Sylvia Odio, and testimony linking Oswald to Bannister, and to right-wing groups. Plus they made Posner look like a fool after he'd said Ferrie didn't know Oswald, and they dig up a photo of them together.

It plays it pretty close to the official story, but it's good to see the archival footage and the first person testimony, even when they're lying bastards like Richard Helms.

[FlaGranny]

167. Not only do they have a photo

of Ferrie and Oswald together at a CAP meeting, they have a photo of Ferrie and Ruby together in his nightclub! They ALL knew each other.

[Octafish]

56. Oh, PBS, please talk to Prof. Newman and Prof. Melanson!

These are two historians expert in Oswald and his dealings with the US Military and Intelligence complexes. As far as Posner and his ilk, they are mere turds afloat in a steaming cesspool made of death, corruption and lies that is the BFEE.

FUCK YOU, BUSH!

[Minstrel Boy]

59. The PBS doc is about 10 years old, I think,

and misses everything the AARB released, which is considerable, and much more.

[Octafish]

65. Thanks, MB! Now that you mention it...

... I do remember seeing it, at the "30th anniversary of the JFK assassination" mediathon.

Things haven't changed a bit. For a communications class, I did a content analysis of the coverage in the New York Times. More than three-fourths of the space was devoted to turd Posner and opinions supporting the Warren Commission and the lone nut Oswald the gunman.

It's a shame, as at that time there were a good number of well-researched books from Philip Melanson, John Newman, Peter Dale Scott, Gaeton Fonzi, Anthony Summers, Mark Lane, James DiEugenio, Harrison Edward Livingstone, DIck Russell, Jonathan Vankin, Mark North and many others whose names I'll remember if I cool off long enough. They only got about 25-percent of the coverage, as measured by the coders in the CA.

I gotta go for a walk. Meteor Shower tonight. Hope you got good skies to the south in Ontario! Motown is clear this noche!

[Minstrel Boy]

79. Apparently Gus Russo is responsible in large part for both

the ABC special and the Frontline report. If I'd seen more of the 10-year old Frontline, I wouldn't have been as quick with my praise. The fairly-weighed portion I tuned in on was not representative of the whole, which largely was an unchallenged retelling of the official story.

Here's some info by Jim DiEugenio on where Russo's coming from:

http://www.abclies.com/russo.html

[Guaranteed]

61. ABC is the same

The first hour was simple characterization of Oswald, and then Ruby. They were both losers with temper problems, who just wanted to be somebody.

Case closed!




<yeah, sarcasm>

[Octafish]

66. Any talk of Ruby and organized crime?

Any talk of Oswald and David Ferrie?

I doubt they'd bring up those connections.

Both lead to the FBI, CIA, Big Oil, Mafia, NAZI axis of evil.

These turds are known, collectively, as the BFEE.

[Guaranteed]

69. They just went through and supposedly refuted

almost all of Stone's case in JFK. They didn't talk too much about the organized crime stuff except to say that Russo was lying, and that Shaw was a victim of Garrison.

[Octafish]

75. Wow. That's low.

And brazen. Nixon himself vouched for Jack Ruby (Rubenstein), so you know he's a crook.

History may not be kind to lickspittles like Peter Jennings and the stooges of the BFEE.

[Very Good Dem]

77. So now we have

the FBI, the CIA, LBJ, the Bushes, the Secret Service, the pro-Castro Cubans, the Dallas Police Department, the anti-Castro Cubans, the Mafia, the military doctors, Ford Motor Company AND Peter Jennings in on the conspiracy.

[Octafish]

80. Not necessarily.

The Bush name, though, spans much of what you mentioned, plus the NAZIs and the KKK. As far as Ford goes, that's where the limousine was taken, hours after the assassination to be stripped and rebuilt. On whose orders that was done, the paper trail is not clear. The Secret Service seems to have destroyed those records rather than turn them over to the NAARB as required by law in the mid-90s.

[aquart]

78. Uses a lot of material that we saw in JFK, too.

Stone published the script of the movie with footnotes out your ears.

[Closer]

53. Anybody ever see these pics?

http://www.celebritymorgue.com/jfk/jfk-autopsy.html

[Octafish]

57. Yes. What about them?

To me, they have been doctored.

What do you think?

[Minstrel Boy]

58. Yes, and when you look at the picture taken of his right side,

it's pretty clear the back of his skull is gone, right where the Parkland doctors said it was.

[Wapsie B]

60. I have only one thing

to say. If this is NOT a conspiracy, open up the files. Show EVERYTHING. Let the chips fall where they may. What's to hide if the WC is right?

[dflprincess]

64. ABC is getting some very negative feedback on this

at their website. Most the posts I checked mentioned the BBC series "The Men Who Killed Kennedy"

I gave up on Jennings after an hour - no point missing ER

[dflprincess]

67. OMG

Now they're pointing out inaccuracies in Oliver Stone's "JFK". Debunking a commercial film is "proof" that Oswald acted alone?

Just mentioned the autopsy photos show exactly where the bullet entered the back of the head. I say we take up a collection and get Jennings cable so he can watch the History Channel.

[Guaranteed]

70. I do think that if they're going to try to prove that Oswald

did it, they need to debunk Stone's points in the movie. That movie is really what keeps my mind open to the idea of a conspiracy.

I have to say they did a pretty damned good job.

[Terwilliger]

74. of what?

debunking Stone's points? Such as?

[Guaranteed]

86. Just a couple of examples-

The 3 shots weren't gotten off in 5.6 or 6 seconds....it was 8.3 seconds. An older man demonstrated it was possible without hurrying too much to get off 3 shots in 7.2 seconds.

Also, the "magic bullet" wasn't really magic- you can see through the computer imaging that the bodies of Kennedy and Connelly were set up in such a way that the bullet path was perfect.

The bullet itself was, in fact, scratched up. It wasn't "pristine" as conspiracy theorists have said.

The policeman who supposedly recorded the sound of a fourth shot couldn't have been where the people who got together the acoustical evidence thought he was (I'm not entirely sure about this one).

And Jennings simply stated that bodies can go either forward or backward when they are shot.

Those are just a few things...I can't remember everything.


Some other questions do still remain in my mind- like WHY THE HELL Oswald and then Ruby were killed.

[aquart]

81. Oddly, for me it was Tippet's murder.

Everybody simply accepts that a cop stops a man walking along the street and the man murders him blocks and miles away from the scene of the crime.

It NEVER fit for me. Never made sense.

Dallas cops patrolled alone in cars? Who was Tippet? Why did Oswald still have a gun on him?

[FlaGranny]

85. The two witnesses who supposedly were

witnesses of the Tippet murder interestingly gave very different descriptons of the man they saw. Different color jacket, different color pants, different complexions - one fair, one ruddy, different color hair - you've got to believe they were describing two different people. Actually, there WAS another witness who said he saw two men.

I wasn't sure of the time line of the Tippet thing. I know Oswald took a cab home and he walked to the theater. The murder took place 1 mile from his home. How far was the murder from the theater? I did see the theater ticket taker say that Oswald went into the theater between 1 and 1:07 p.m. and they mentioned that that was the time Tippet was murdered. Could Tippet possibly have just interrupted a drug deal?

[Solomon]

71. They did a good job of explaining the official view.

I'm more impressed than I thought I would be. I still have trouble believing Oswald could have been that accurate with that kind of gun. You have to remove the gun from your aim in order to cock it again.

[Guaranteed]

72. Yeah...

I thought the first hour was horrible, but then it got better in the second half. The most important stuff was in the last twenty minutes.

[FlaGranny]

82. Not only that, but the

scope was supposedly out of adjustment.

[0rganism]

113. How did Jennings explain away the windshield story?

A photographed and witnessed bullet hole in the windshield is anathema to the single-shooter-from-behind theory.

[jsw_81]

102. I just saw the program

It absolutely DESTROYED the various conspiracy theories about President Kennedy's murder and proved beyond ANY doubt that Lee Harvey Oswald was the lone assassin.

You'd have to be either mentally ill or really, really stubborn to still believe in a conspiracy after watching tonight's program. Case closed.

BTW, isn't Oliver Stone an asshole? His film was complete and utter bullshit and he ought to be ashamed of himself for making it. Sadly, many people out there (including some on this board) still think he's a "hero" for making that trash. What a bunch of idiots.

[Guaranteed]

103. I wouldn't say it proved beyond ANY doubt

that he did it alone, but it certainly did put some massive holes in the conspiracy theories.

I didn't like the first hour, though- most of it was characterization. They can't just say that Oswald was a loser who just wanted to "be somebody." That's not real evidence. That's a matter of opinion or interpretation.

[Rex]

108. Wow, not a big Oliver Stone fan I see

I don't think he is a "hero", but liked his movie JFK. Do you hate Stone or do you hate what he tried to do with the movie?

[Andyjunction]

112. JFK was a great movie

Honestly, I really like that movie a lot. It's very tense and fast paced with loads of talented actors.

The Wizard of Oz is also a great movie.

[PAMod]

121. Heh heh.

Wizard of Oz used less "dramatic license".

[Minstrel Boy]

116. I hope you don't always watch television so uncritically.

http://www.abclies.com/

You'd have to be either mentally ill or really, really stubborn to still believe in a conspiracy after watching tonight's program.

Geez, you're putting a lot of faith in a TV show to tell you the truth. How about reading some books with a critical mind? But then I guess I'm one of those mentally ill or really, really stubborn types.

[tinanator]

119. ain't it amazing?

how many people hang on every word dispensed by their good friend the TV?

[AbbieLives]

130. TV is doubleplusgood!

The TV is your friend. You better remember that. Or else!

[AG78]

120. Especially...

one that tries to debunk any conspiracy theory whatsoever, then has a commercial advertising Stone's JFK DVD. Just a little odd. By watching the program, there's no longer any need to think about conspiracy, thanks to computer simulation. But buy the DVD of the most well known(only?) JFK conspiracy movie.

I know, it'll promote debate. But the program was designed as the definitive answer to all the possible questions.

It gets people to watch, because of the content, therefore ratings. On the other hand, they get your money by advertising the DVD. That's the conspiracy.

[tinanator]

118. better than all that

despite the fact that King Whore Cronkite already did the ridiculous computer graphics simulation rebuttal back in the Oliver Stone era, there are THOUSANDS of FACTS that make these limp fantasies nothing but inplausible denials for those who prefer to believe. This may be what happens when parents leave nickels and quarters under the pillow and blame the tooth fairy, I dont know. What I DO know, and perhaps nobody will even read this to factor it in, is this: A shoestring hillbilly relative is a Sheriff Deputy/former 1/2 ass FBI agent. Imagine my intense surprise when his face was on the front page discussing his part in one aspect of this case. Apparently a lowlife was in his neck of the woods seeking protection from those who would kill him for his part in JFK's assassination. Sure enough, he wound up dead. And this Sheriff/FBI "agent" ended up testifying before the Church Committee about the dead man's claims. Now, I don't know about you, but if my life was clearly in danger, and I was seeking protection (which I gather he didnt get enough of?) I might just be honest about the situation. Seeing rather clearly how some/many people are genetically predisposed to be contrarian, I'm sure there will be many alternate takes on this, IF anyone deigns to pay attention. More than likely, it is better ignored by those who are entertained by computer graphic "simulations" brought to you by the same folks who substitute "polling" results for news, but fail to do the same to verify election results. P.T. Barnum was either an optomist, or else production has simply gone up by a factor of ten.

[Llyr21]

125. Well I missed the Jennings show but...

I caught one on Discovery the other day thast also showed how a guy could shoot-cycle-aim-shoot-cycle-aim-shoot in 7.9 seconds with an MC rifle, and get 3 hits in a close simulation from a cherry picker made up like the window firing at a towed car at 10 mph.

A few technical quibbles right off, they used an expert sharpshooter (it's not clear what Oswald's skills may have been), and they rebuilt and fine tuned the rifle, I understand the actual rifle was anything but fine tuned. And still only got it fire all three shots without misfiring twice out of 7 tries.

Problem is, that 8 seconds is pure baloney. Very cute how they tried to say that the tree was the determining factor for the timing. Sorry but the Zapruder film (which can be seen frame by frame here: http://www.jmasland.com/z_color/ ) Clearly shows that Kennedy has NOT been shot yet at frame 195 (which is quite a ways before passing behind the sign), and the last shot to the head first shows in frame 313. Now, 313 - 195 = 118 frames, 118 frames Divided by 18 frames per second = 6.555 seconds. Which would be the longest POSSIBLE time between the first and last shots. Which pretty well shoots the "it's possible to do it in 8 seconds" hypothesis "back and to the left" as it were ;) .

Another thing funny about that particular show was that they bypassed the magic bullet hypothesis by totally ignoring the fragment that hit Tague, and instead relying on Mrs Connally on the show saying (which seems to contradict her testimony from back then)that the first bullet hit Kennedy in the back, the second hit her Husband, and the third hit Kennedy in the head.

As for that magic bullet hypothesis, another problem for it can be found on the Zapruder film, it is quite clear the Kennedy has already been hit as he emerges from behind the sign at frame 225(he is already reacting), but Connally doesn't even start to react for another 11/18 of a second (frame 236), and that reaction was, according to all the testimony I've heard (from HIM and his wife) a reaction to the sound of the shot, not the bullet hitting him. It was another piece of time before he actually got hit, sorry, it just doesn't take that long for a bullet to travel 2 or 3 feet. If it did, it would have bounced off of him.

As for the Zapruder clearly showing the head shot hitting from the front, all I can determine from those frames is the it clearly took out the SIDE of his head, leaving front or back trajectory ambiguous, except that it DID knock his head back, which is suggestive that it came from the front.

[jsw_81]

184. Wrong, wrong, wrong

1. The first shot missed the presidential car. That was the one that caused the injury to Tague's cheek.

2. If you had watched the ABC special you would understand how Kennedy and Connally were hit with the same bullet. You can even see Connally's lapel being hit by the bullet a split second after Kennedy clutches his throat.

3. The front/right of Kennedy's head exploded, indicating a shot from the rear. The enhanced Nix film (I believe) CLEARLY shows the back of Kennedy's head when he is hit with the fatal shot, and contrary to what the conspiracy nuts would have you think it was not blown out. Like the Zapruder film, it shows the blood spraying FORWARD, totally consistant with a shot from the rear.

[Solomon]

126. Okay. Here's the things which bother me.

To the average layman like myself who has no experience shooting guns, the Zapruder film looks like the head shot was from the front.
Blasted the right side of his head clean off.

I'm told that what I think is an entrance shot, is actually the exit shot, i.e., that the bullet went in the back of his head and exploded out the front right side. (By the way, I'm not impressed by a lot of people's claims that his head went forward first and then back, etc. - I don't see that watching the film and it looks like people are convincing themselves this happened to justify a back of the head shot).

Since I'm not familiar with gunshot wounds, this question of the bullet coming from the back and exploding out the front intrigues me. That is, I have to admit from my lack of knowledge of gunshot wounds that this is possible. BUT. I still have a problem with that theory because it seems to me the way his head was at the time of the shot is on the wrong angle from the depository window to have caused the bullet to exit the right front of his head. I would like to see a line directly from the window at the precise moment of impact so I can see if the angles match up.

Secondly, from what I saw on the Zapruder film, the autopsy photos of Kennedy's head (link provided in responses above) don't make sense at all to me. I mean the film shows that the right side of his head was practically blown clean off, yet the autopsy photo shows the right side of his head still there. And it's hard to see the entrance wound of the head shot in the photos of the back of his head. The pictures don't make sense at all to me.

Third, if the same gun was used, why wasn't there a similar explosion of the front of Kennedy's neck or Connally's shoulder when that bullet hit?

Fourth, I find it hard to believe that the C.I.A. or whatever spooks there were would not have sought to take advantage of Oswald's Soviet/Cuba thing to try to recruit him as an agent. Even if he was a lone nut trying to defect etc. it still seems to me the government would have been extremely interested in him to see what use they could get out of him.

The presentation was impressive, but I still don't quite buy the Oswald trying to be somebody thing. His brother was acting like it would be a tragedy if people didn't acceptm that Oswald acted alone. Very strange. Almost like he was enjoying his status as brother of the world's most famous assassin.

On the other hand, the fact that Oswald had the appearance of being connected to Russia and Cuba does support the position that the last thing the government wanted was the idea that Russia or Cuba was behind it. In other words, under that scenario they had a legitimate reason to lie about it. BUT. If this is so, why not tell us the truth now and say that "we were concerned about nuclear war" then so we did what we thought was best to preserve life on the planet.

All in all. I'm still not satisfied and still think it was a conspiracy. I don't believe it was the mob as some have said, because that kind of hit is not their m.o. They don't hit from long range.

[dflprincess]

129. So, we have a two hour program by ABC

and a what 9 hour(?) series produced by the BBC that come to completely different conclusions on JFK's murder.... Who to believe? ABC or BBC? That comes down to which one has been more credible overall.

[Terwilliger]

133. speaking of The Men Who Killed Kennedy?

I need to find that on video somewhere.

[Junkdrawer]

136. Here ya go...

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/6304025394/104-7354091-5527953?v=glance

[Solomon]

138. T I just bought it off the internet and just got it

today. Costs about 25 bucks.

[Terwilliger]

142. Thanks

:hi:

[Terwilliger]

132. What happened to the first shot??

There were three shots. Number 2 nailed kennedy in the neck. Number 3 hit him just off-center on his head.

What happened to Number 1? You mean, his second and third shots were so wonderfully spot on, but the first one (ultimately the easiest and the one where he could concentrate on it the most) missed the entire car?? From a much closer distance??

[Llyr21]

134. and

an angle that would have been several degrees off of hitting the curb over by Tague, talk about bad aim :rolleyes:

[PAMod]

135. The speculation is that the first shot struck a tree branch...

and the bullet or a fragment hit the curb sending a shard of concrete into Mr. Tague's cheek. I'm not sure if the tree was in the way that early in the sequence, though.

Regarding the relative ease of the shots, in this case the first shot might have been the hardest because the shooter (if in the TSBD) would have had to be the closest to the window opening for the shot (due to the downward angle.) The other two shots he could have been inside, more or less out of sight.

Also, the third shot would have been the easiest because the car was moving almost directly away from the perch, making it easier to follow the moving car.

[Llyr21]

137. Still MORE problems

That would put the first shot at least 3 1/2 seconds prior to the one that hit Kennedy in the back, though in all that time we see NO reaction to the sound at all. And the consistent testimony was that Conally looked back over his right shoulder as soon as heard the first shot. They can't force fit this.

[Bushknew]

154. Bravo, wonderfully put Terwilliger

And Jack Ruby sent a telegram at 11 17 and then decides to kill Lee at 11 21?

Talk about spur of the moment, there was no mention that Jack Ruby was politically
active or passionate about politics. He just wanted attention.

By that logic, we should have assassination attempts on famous people everyday.

[0rganism]

140. Jim DiEugenio already has a debunk site in progress for this: ABCLies.com

http://www.abclies.com/

I was listening to him on KBOO this morning. He shot Jennings' take so full of holes that even a magic bullet couldn't have done it justice.

[buycitgo]

186. thanks, organism, and the other person linking abc lies

that Russo guy is something else, hey?

must be pals with his fellow award winner, Bill OReilly.

do they compare their Peabody and Pulitzers?

David Westin also stole Ed Rollins' wife from him, heh.

love to hear what he has to say about Westin

[karabekian]

153. i watched it

I watched it last night. It was through and examined many aspects of the official story and conspiracy theories. I have to say, that Oswald had the skill (expert marine marksman and the shot was only 88 yards), opportunity (he was in the book place overlooking the street), and motive to kill JFK ( a few were put forward. My guess is that he wanted to be important or make his mark and through coincidence, was put in a situation where he could). I would further say that with availible evidence that he was the one who killed JFK. Unless there are hidden or destroyed documents and evidence, I feel confident that he was the culprit. They did also address the audio recording with 4 gun shots. The cop whose radio picked up the noise was a couple of hundred yards away from where the accoustic tests were based on. He also said he wasn't close when he heard the shots. Kudos for the scale models of the events and the area. Was an interesting watch.

As someone who has shot scoped rifles, a scoped shot at 88 yards is not hard at all for a marine sharpshooter. Getting off 3 shots and aiming through the scope at that range is also highly possible. Oswald made the shot and was involved. Wheather others were involved too that is the real question

[BlackFrancis]

160. they always come out and scold people for not believing them on anniversar

What's funny is that no matter how many times they tell the American people how bad and wrongheaded they are not to trust the government the percentage of people who believe the official line always goes down year after year.

[Solomon]

161. Okay. I Got it. I'm certain now. If those autopsy pictures are real

then the Zapruder film looks right. The head shot had to come from the front. It was a different kind of bullet. One that smashed him on impact, and then tore out the top back of his head. The exit wound is indeed larger than the entrance wound. Where they fooled us is in pretending that the back of the head wound is smaller than the front of the head wound. Couple what you see in the Zapruder film and the autopsy photos, and it becomes clear that there was another gunman. I think he had a different gun or kind of bullet, than the gun that Oswald had.

I'm satisfied. I thought the show was a good presentation though, from their point of view.

I still believe that Oswald was something that intelligence would not have ignored. He made himself too useful, for just about any kind of mess you'd want to generate. A guy like that they would have kept tabs on if only for the convenient patsy he was making himself into.

The other reason I don't think it was the mob is that there's been a hell of a lot of confessions by mafia members in the years since. But they get nowhere near any talk about this one.

[buycitgo]

185. uhhhhhh.....Johnny Roselli. Sam Giancana?

they talked, were about to testify, and were KILLED right before they were to testify

George de Mohrenschildt was suicided right before he was to testify

Santos Trafficante's lawyer said that ST and Marcello were in cahoots

Jack Ruby was a gunrunner to Cuba

clearly knew Oswald

is captured on FILM at the Dallas police station, correcting the name of "Fair Play for Cuba Committee" when the spokesman gets it wrong.

did Jennings show that little bit of history?

did they interview any of the doctors at Parkland?

did they discuss how the SS waved off their compatriots who were walking in front of the limo? I saw the footage of that on the history channel.

did they explain why the limo was the FIRST car in the procession, with NO other cars/motorcycles in front, which NEVER happens?

the Secret Service angle really deserves an entire investigation on its own.

Why/when did they change the route from straight past the depository to making a 90 degree, then a, what, 120 degree (?????) turn, at the last minute? this sort of turn is completely contraindicated in any routing of presidential caravans, for exactly what happened forty years ago, and this rubric was in place then.

what about that?

not to mention that the car SLOWED DOWN after the first shot!

why? did they ever interview the driver?'


and WTF were those guys doing up til five in the morning, drinking at a night club? why weren't they FIRED immediately?