My response to 20 assertions made by a Warren Commission defender...

[TruthIsAll]

This was posted in another long thread. It deserves its own.
So here goes. I expect this will generate quite a few responses from the usual suspects.

1. We have two films, Zapruder and Nix, showing the president's head snapping forward a split second after the fatal shot, indicating a shot from the rear. We also have photographic evidence of an exit wound in the right front of the president's head, more evidence of a shot from the rear.

- No. The Zapruder film clearly shows JFK falling back and to the left. As for the photograph, it appears to be touched up to me. The massive rear head wound depicted in the parkland doctor's initial drawing and confirmed by all the other doctor's and nurses is the best evidence.

There was no motive to fabricate this drawing. Oswald was not even a suspect yet.


But there was a motive to hide the exit wound after Oswald was apprehended.


2.We have several autopsy photos that support a shot from the rear.

- No. We have one entry wound in the back (no exit), several inches below the collar. We have an entry wound in the throat. We have an entry wound in the right temple. We have the curb markings of the Teague shot which missed. And we have the Connally wounds from a another bullet. That's at least five (5) shots.

3. We have numerous bullet fragments from the president and the governor traced back to Oswald's rifle, as well as a damaged bullet that was also traced to Oswald's rifle.

-Quite the contrary.
http://www.ratical.org/ratville/JFK/PG/PGchp3.html
"Yet, there is nothing in this evidence itself to prove either that Oswald's rifle was used in the shooting or, if it was, that Oswald fired it. The whole fault in the Commission's case relating the Mannlicher-Carcano rifle to the shooting is this: bullets identifiable with that rifle were found outside of the victims' bodies. Pieces of metal not traceable to any rifle were found inside the bodies. The Report merely assumes the legitimacy of the specimens found externally and works on the assumption that these bullets and fragments had once been inside the bodies, and thus were involved in the shooting"

4.We have evidence that Oswald purchased the rifle.

-We do? Alex Hidell? And whose handwriting?
http://www.ratical.org/ratville/JFK/PG/PGchp3.html

WC defenders note that the order form, money order, and envelope used to purchase the Mannlicher-Carcano were filled out in handwriting identified as Oswald's (see, for example, Moore 48). Furthermore, they point to Oswald's alleged use of the alias "Alek Hidell." The rifle was sent to Oswald's post office box, but it was ordered in the name of, and addressed to, "A. Hidell." According to the Dallas police, Oswald was carrying an "Alek J. Hidell" ID card when he was arrested. Here's where things get interesting.

To begin with, Oswald was at work when he is said to have purchased the money order (Summers 213). So who bought the money order? If Oswald didn't buy it, why does the handwriting on it seem to be his? There are forgers who can copy a person's handwriting so well that it is difficult if not impossible to detect their fakery, especially if only a small quantity of writing is required. Also, the original order form and envelope were destroyed, so the FBI had to rely on microfilm copies of this evidence.

Another problem with the connection between Oswald and the Carcano is that nobody at Oswald's post office reported giving him a hefty package such as the kind in which a rifle would be shipped (Summers 59; Meagher 50). In fact, none of those postal workers reported ever giving Oswald ANY kind of a package. Oddly, the FBI apparently made no effort to establish that Oswald picked up the rifle from the post office, or that he had ever received a package of any kind there. Furthermore, postal regulations required that only those persons named on the post office box's registration form could receive items of mail from the box, yet there is no evidence that Oswald listed the name of Hidell on the form (Smith 290-291). In fact, in a report dated 3 June 1964, the FBI stated, "Our investigation has revealed that Oswald did NOT indicate on his application that others, including an 'A. Hidell,' would receive mail through the box in question" (Meagher 49, emphasis added).

There is a discrepancy in size between the weapon ordered by "A. Hidell" and the rifle that Oswald allegedly left behind on the sixth floor of the TSBD. "A. Hidell" ordered item C20-T750 from an advertisement placed by Klein's Sporting Goods in the February 1963 issue of AMERICAN RIFLEMAN. The rifle that was listed as item C20-T750 is 36 inches long. However, the Mannlicher-Carcano that Oswald supposedly abandoned on the sixth floor of the Book Depository Building is 40.2 inches long (Lifton 20).

http://karws.gso.uri.edu/JFK/the_critics/griffith/Problems_with_case_against_Oswald.html

Most conspiracy theorists see the mail-order murder weapon and the "Hidell" ID card as evidence of a frame-up. They note the sheer stupidity of it all. In the Texas of 1963 Oswald could have bought a rifle across the counter with few if any questions asked. He could have done so and risked only a future debatable identification by some gun shop worker. Instead, we are told, Oswald ordered the murder weapon by using the alias "A. Hidell," gave his own post office box number, committed his handwriting to paper, and then went out to assassinate the President of the United States with this same "Hidell"-purchased rifle and while carrying a "Hidell" ID card in his wallet!

Many WC critics doubt that Oswald was carrying the "Hidell" ID card at the time of his arrest. They point to the fact that the Dallas police said nothing about the fake ID card until the FBI later announced that the alleged murder weapon had been ordered by an "A. Hidell." Critics also note that neither the phony identification nor the use of an alias is mentioned in the transcripts of the radio traffic between the arresting officers and the police station (Groden and Livingstone 183-184; Lane 133-136). One of the officers who brought Oswald to the police station, Paul Bentley, said he established Oswald's identify by going through his belongings, and there was no suggestion that Bentley had to decide whether his suspect was named Oswald or Hidell. Said Bentley, "On the way to City Hall I removed the suspect's wallet and obtained his name" (Groden and Livingstone 184). Additionally, not one of the arresting officers mentioned finding or seeing the Hidell ID card in their reports to the police chief two weeks after the assassination (Meagher 186). (A further twist comes from the fact that former FBI agent James Hosty, who worked out of the Dallas FBI office at the time of the assassination, claims in a recent book that Oswald's wallet was actually found at the J. D. Tippit murder scene!)


5.We have Oswald's prints on the rifle.


-The question is: who put the prints on them? And when?
http://karws.gso.uri.edu/JFK/the_critics/griffith/Problems_with_case_against_Oswald.html

If Oswald did order the rifle and maintain possession of it for a while, he could have been instructed to do so by those who were framing him to be the patsy for the assassination. If nothing else, the plotters could have arranged for Oswald to handle the rifle before the shooting, in order to get some of his prints on the weapon. The Dallas police found some partial fingerprints on the Carcano's magazine housing (a part of the trigger guard). The FBI studied these prints the day after the assassination and determined that they were worthless for identification purposes. However, in recent years two independent fingerprint experts examined photographs of the prints and concluded they were Oswald's. What is odd about these prints is that they were located on a part of the rifle that would NOT have been handled while it was being fired. Some researchers are understandably skeptical of the recent identification of the partial prints as Oswald's. But, if the prints are his, then I would suggest they were made as a result of Oswald being manipulated into handling the rifle shortly before the shooting.

Are the partial prints Oswald's? Fingerprint experts Jerry Powdrill and Vincent J. Scalice examined photos of the prints in 1993 and concluded they were Oswald's. Many conspiracy theorists are skeptical of this identification and point out that the prints were studied carefully in 1963 by the FBI's Sebastian Latona, a highly skilled and experienced fingerprint expert, and found to be worthless. WC defenders reply that Latona didn't have access to the same photos of the prints that Powdrill and Scalice were able to use. However, not only was Latona able to study the original prints themselves, but he had additional pictures taken of them for examination purposes. Latona's WC testimony leads many researchers to doubt the validity of Powdrill's and Scalice's identification.


6.We have photos of Oswald holding the rifle and testimony of the woman, his wife, who took said photos (this destroys any claim that the photos were "doctored" by conspirators).

-Controversial, to say the least.
http://karws.gso.uri.edu/JFK/the_critics/griffith/Problems_with_case_against_Oswald.html

According to the WC and the HSCA, all of the backyard snapshots were taken with a cheap, hand-held camera, known as the Imperial Reflex camera.

When the backyard photos were examined by Major John Pickard, a former commander of the photographic department of the Canadian Defense Department, he declared them to be fakes. Retired Detective Superintendent Malcolm Thompson, a past president of the Institute of Incorporated Photographers in England, analyzed the pictures and came to the same conclusion. (When the HSCA's photographic panel concluded that the backyard photos were authentic, Thompson deferred to the panel on most of the issues concerning the genuineness of the pictures. However, Thompson said he remained troubled by the chin on Oswald in the photos, which is different from his chin in other pictures.)

There are indications of fraud in the backyard photos that are obvious even to the layman. For example, the shadow of Oswald's nose falls in one direction while the shadow of his body falls in another direction. And, the shadow under Oswald's nose remains the same in all three photos even when his head is tilted. The HSCA's photographic panel could offer only an unrealistic reenactment based on highly improbable assumptions to explain the problematic nose shadow. In the end, the panel ended up appealing to a vanishing point analysis to explain all of the variant shadows in the backyard photos. I discussed this matter with a number of professional photographers, and none of them took the position that a vanishing point analysis would explain the kinds of conflicting shadows seen in the backyard pictures.

Another indication of fakery in the photos is the fact that the HSCA's photographic panel could find only minute ("very small") differences in the distances between objects in the backgrounds. This virtual sameness of backgrounds is a virtual impossibility given the manner in which the pictures were supposedly taken. In order to achieve this effect, Marina would have had to hold the camera in almost the exact same position, to within a tiny fraction of an inch each time, for each of the three photos, an extremely unlikely scenario, particularly in light of the fact that Oswald allegedly took the camera from her in between pictures to advance the film.


7.We have testimony from a man who saw Oswald carry a package into the book depository on the morning of the assassination, a package that was later found empty near the sixth floor sniper's nest. Oswald said it contained "curtain rods" but no curtain rods were ever found. Oswald was obviously lying that morning. Why?

- Not so obvious.
Sprague, Richard E.
The Framing of Lee Harvey Oswald
Computers and Automation / October 1973

For the tenth anniversary of assassination, Sprague contributed this ambitious 15-page article that examined some of the photo-evidence against Oswald. Features several photos at the time not generally available, including full-page reproduction of James Murray Depository photo used in Six Seconds in Dallas. Publishes Hughes frame and Dillard photos as proof that no shots fired from Oswald window, observing later photos showed window bottom raised to height necessary to afford sniper view. Gene Daniels photo of landlady putting up curtains lends credence to Oswald’s story of bringing curtain rods to work. Presents work by Fred Newcomb on the Backyard Photos; and charges Marina with lying about her participation. Contends Howard Brennan never looks up during the Zapruder film. Implicates Marina, the Paines and deMohrenshildts, and Dallas Police. Even Oswald’s landlord and landlady are drawn in, as is Oswald co-worker Buell Wesley Frazier whom Sprague mentions was a crack shot who “disappeared for several.hours.after.the.assassination.


8. We have Oswald's prints on the boxes in the sixth floor sniper's nest.

-Sure, he worked there, didn't he? But how come no prints were found for any of his co-workers? They handled the boxes also.

9.We have the damning testimony of Oswald's co-workers (see post 95) who were on the fifth floor during the shooting and heard three shots come from above. They also heard what sounded like the the bolt action of a rifle, and three shell casings hitting the floor.

-They heard shots. So what? The question is: who did the firing?

10.We have evidence of Oswald fleeing the area and killing a police officer shortly after the shooting in Dealey Plaza.

-There is no evidence that he fled. He took a bus. And there is no evidence that he killed Tippet.

11.We have testimony from a Dallas Police officer that Oswald pulled a gun and yelled "This is it!" when confronted in the Texas theatre.

-He may have. By this time, he knew he had been set up.

12.We have the testimony of dozens of witnesses who heard three shots from the book depository (compared to the paltry few who thought they heard shots and saw "smoke" coming from the knoll), including a few witnesses who actually *saw* a man who matched Oswald's height, build and complexion fire three shots at the presidential motorcade.

-Many heard (and some saw) shots coming from the grassy knoll. Did you see "The Men Who Killed Kennedy" on the History Channel.? If not, it will soon be out on DVD. There is an eyewitness who claims to have seen two men (one shooting) from behind the grassy knoll fence. There is just a single eyewitness who claims to have seen someone looking like Oswald on the 6th floor. And he had faulty vision.

13.We have photograpic evidence showing several witnesses, including Secret Service agents, looking toward the book depository seconds after the shooting started.

-That could have been anyone firing, right? Just because they looked up, does not mean they saw LHO.

14.We have evidence that Oswald checked out library books on assassinations and JFK only a few months before the shooting in Dallas.

-Where is the evidence?

15.We have evidence that Oswald was an excellent shot, trained by the U.S. Marine Corps to hit a target at over 200 yards (the president was less than 100 yards from the TSBD when hit).

-He was? He had maggies drawers.
http://karws.gso.uri.edu/JFK/the_critics/griffith/Problems_with_case_against_Oswald.html

If anything, the evidence indicates Oswald had very little time for target practice in the weeks preceding President Kennedy's death. Oswald's landlady reported that in the forty days preceding the assassination Oswald usually watched TV or read after he came home from work. On the weekends, he almost always visited his wife and children. When and where did Oswald have the chance to practice firing at a moving target from sixty feet up and from an average of two hundred feet away?

And Oswald would have needed lots of practice. He was at best an average shot. One of his Marine Corps buddies, Nelson Delgado, reported that Oswald had trouble meeting the minimum Marine marksmanship standards, and that he was such a poor shot that he often missed the target completely. In 1977 former Rockefeller Foundation fellow Henry Hurt interviewed over fifty of Oswald's Marine colleagues. Apparently, not one of them described the alleged assassin as an excellent shot, and nearly all of them agreed with Delgado's testimony that Oswald was a poor marksman (Hurt 99-100).
Some WC defenders point to the CBS television network's reenactment of the assassination as proof that Oswald could have shot Kennedy. The CBS rifle test was reported in the 1975 documentary THE AMERICAN ASSASSINS and was presented as evidence of the WC's findings regarding the shooting. However, CBS's reenactment failed to establish that Oswald could have done what the WC said he did.

The CBS test was not a realistic simulation of the shooting feat attributed to Oswald. CBS used eleven expert riflemen, but Oswald was an average marksman at best. Also, the CBS test assumed the correctness of the single-bullet theory. Therefore, the shooters were not required to load and fire their second shot, or any shot, in approximately one second. They should have been asked to do so since numerous witnesses from all over Dealey Plaza said two of the shots came so closely together that they were nearly simultaneous (see, for example, Menninger 249, 253, 278, 298, and Brown 92-93, 99, 115). Some of these witnesses said the two shots were so close together that they almost sounded like a single burst of two bullets from an automatic weapon. No gunman, no matter how skilled, could have fired the Carcano with that kind of speed, and, obviously, the CBS shooters were not required to do so.

It should also be kept in mind that the CBS reenactment did not take into account such matters as the cramped conditions in which Oswald would have had to fire, and the fact that in the forty days preceding the assassination Oswald had few if any chances to target practice. The riflemen in the CBS test did not use the supposed murder weapon itself. They used a Carcano, but not the one Oswald allegedly used. Additionally, not one of the expert CBS shooters managed to score at least two hits out of three shots in less than six seconds on his first attempt, yet Oswald would have had only one attempt. Seven of the CBS riflemen failed to score two hits on ANY of their attempts.


16.We have evidence that Oswald left his wedding ring and a large amount of cash for his wife the morning of the assassination, something he had NEVER done before.

-Yes, one hundred seventy dollars. Why should he carry so much money. To buy a coke? Many men leave their wedding ring at home. What does this prove? That he expected to be caught? It's a reach. No evidence of anything.

17.We have Oswald's own brother (who visited Lee in jail) telling news media that Lee was guilty as charged.

-How would he know? Did Lee confess to him?

18.WE EVEN HAVE SOLID EVIDENCE THAT LEE OSWALD HAD TRIED TO ASSASSINATE ANOTHER PROMINENT POLITICAL FIGURE ONLY MONTHS BEFORE KENNEDY WAS KILLED!!!

-So Oswald, a left-wing nut-job, shot at Walker, a right-wing nut-job who hated JFK and Bobby. Why then would Oswald, a Marxist and Castro sympathizer, shoot JFK, a liberal who was seeking peace with Kruschev? You can't have it both ways.

19. Yet with all of this damning evidence (and there is even more evidence that I haven't presented) you clueless conspiracy nuts still cling to your ridiculous, unsubstantiated theories. It really boggles the mind.

-No, friend, you boggle the mind. Because you only consider the fabrications and misrepresentations put forth by the Warren Commission (primarily the totally discredited Magic Bullet Theory, but much else. You have lots of reading to do.

20. I bet you people thought O.J. Simpson was innocent too, right? Maybe the same conspirators who "framed" him also killed President Kennedy! Hell, they might even be the same folks who are currently "framing" Michael Jackson! It's all a vast, vast conspiracy!

-I happen to believe O.J. was guilty as sin. Because the evidence (blood) was overwhelming. So there. As for Michael Jackson, I don't give a damn one way or the other. And I have no interest in the case. So, not knowing the facts, I will not venture an opinion.

Finally, to you, sir, the JFK murder and all the facts pointing to conspiracy are all an improbable vast, vast coincidence!!!

[yowzayowzayowza]

1. This much work...

...deserves as least one :kick: til I can get around to reading it.

[whatelseisnew]

2. kick

[TruthIsAll]

3. I'll kick myself if no WC defenders comment n/t

.

[William Seger]

4. "All the facts pointing to conspiracy?" Gimma a break!

I can actually have some sympathy for people who think that there's still room for doubting the Warren Commission conclusions, but when someone says "all the facts point to conspiracy", then either A) it's someone who is a conspiracy huckster who finds it profitable to sell the idea that "everything the WC said was wrong", or B) it's someone whose knowledge of the matter comes from uncritically accepting the shoddy "journalism" of the conspiracy hucksters, who preach that the Way and the Light is to reflexively deny any suggestion that the WC might be correct about the smallest detail, or C) it's someone who has a very peculiar notion about what a "fact" is, since all the real "facts" either support the WC's main conclusions or aren't particularly relevant if you can't substantiate a conspiracy claim. Tomorrow, I will try to find time to go through these points and see how many "facts" really "point to conspiracy", but for tonight, let's just do the first two.

1. Here's yet another view of the Zapruder evidence that JFK was shot from behind. (Just keep repeating "back and to the left" over and over while you watch it, and maybe it'll start doing that :eyes:)



Note that at this point, regardless of the direction it came from, the bullet is long gone, having passed completely through the head in about 0.3 milliseconds, and it cannot possibly impart any more momentum into JFK than it already has in frame 313. And here we clearly see what effect that momentum has had between frame 312 before the hit and 313 after the bullet is gone: The head has been forced forward (with the chin hitting the chest soon after or soon before 313), and JFK's right temple has exploded forward. The bullet is gone, yet the conspiracy hucksters insist that the head moving forward doesn't mean anything, and that the head being in about that same position in the next frame still doesn't mean anything, but when JFK starts the "back and to the left" movement in the frame after that -- at least 1/9th second after the bullet hit -- now we're somehow seeing the results of the momentum of the bullet. Nevermind, they say, that the leftward "lurch" actually starts off slowly and then accelerates; it was still caused by the impact. According to the conspiracy hucksters, anyone who can't see this as a clear result of a shot from the front is ignorant of physics or has some sort of "agenda". And, of course, the real physicists who have actually studied both the forward snap and the leftward lurch can only have an agenda if they disagree with the conspiracy hucksters.

I pointed out to you, Truthee, that I had found that the forward snap is well known among researchers. I take it you didn't investigate it any further? What a surprise. Here's some help: http://karws.gso.uri.edu/JFK/Scientific_topics/Physics_of_head_shot/Physics_of_the_head_shot.html (In particular, if you really intend to argue about it, you should at least acquant yourself with the facts that need to be explained by any viable hypothesis: http://karws.gso.uri.edu/JFK/Scientific_topics/Physics_of_head_shot/2-Z-film.html . Or for anyone who just want to read the summary: http://karws.gso.uri.edu/JFK/Scientific_topics/Physics_of_head_shot/2-Z-film.html )

As for this: "The massive rear head wound depicted in the parkland doctor's initial drawing and confirmed by all the other doctor's and nurses is the best evidence." I've been reading up on this, and what I've found is that this is one of the many "mysteries" that's been solved over and over again, but the hucksters just keep dredging it back up. It's really very simple: Yes, there was a "rear" head wound! But it just doesn't mean what you're saying it means, because it's one of the many half-truths that conspiracy hucksters sell. What the conspiracy hucksters do here is intentionally distort what the autopsy really found: They found that a large chunk of skull had been blasted away from the right side of the head, above the right ear, and yes, the "defect" started about an inch or so the right of center of the back of the head, then went all the way around to the temple. But there were actually three "flaps" of scalp with pieces of skull still attached. And guess what, one of these "flaps" was just about in the position of that sketch you keep posting! (And, in fact, the scalp had been ripped down to a point low on the back of the head.) So, in that sense, the sketch is not too inaccurate, considering that it was drawn from a verbal description, except for the fact that the sketch exaggerates the size of the rear opening, and it should be somewhat farther to the right, and one needs to be careful of the somewhat confusing angle shown (i.e. judging by the ear and the implied position of the eye, that hole really is to the upper right rear, but the position of the neck seems to suggest a lower wound, which is misleading), and most importantly, it's not a complete depiction of the wound. It would appear that the sketch is simply what would be seen if the other two "flaps" were closed, which is quite possibly exactly what the doctors in the Parkland ER saw! How? Because Mrs. Kennedy tried to hold JFK's head closed on the way the hospital, and by that time, the blood had started to coagulate. When he was placed on the stretcher, the rear "flap" apparently opened. This is where it's important to note that the Parkland doctors did not attempt a forensic investigation of any of the wounds. But the autopsy doctors did, and what they found was a clear indication of an bullet entry wound (i.e. inwardly beveled) at the rear edge of that large defect, many fractures radiating away from that wound in various directions, another piece of the same entry wound in the piece of skull detached immediately to the right of that, and many more pieces of skull detached, missing, or still hanging on to the scalp going all the way around toward the temple. Then, on the forward edge of the "defect", right behind the temple area, right where the Zapruder film shows what certainly appears to be an exit wound, they found an indication of another half of an outwardly beveled hole.

So here's the thing: It appears that the three scalp "flaps" being either open or closed at any point in time can account for virtually all of the alleged discrepancies in the visual appearance of the head wound reported by many people, and between those descriptions and the autopsy report and some of the autopsy photos (which have been "bootlegged" without precise descriptions of what's being shown), and the x-rays -- all without anybody being "wrong" or "lying". For example, Truthee, you asked me in the other thread (which was getting too long anyway) why there was no rear head wound in the photo that shows the back wound. The answer is that Dr. Boswell explicitly stated that he was holding the scalp back in place for that photo, and that the skull below the scalp really was blasted away as described in the autopsy report.

And all this has been known for some time now, which is why investigation after investigation has found nothing to be alarmed about with the "discrepancies" that are intentionally distorted and exaggerated by the conspiracy hucksters and accepted uncritically by the "buffs".

So, yes, there was a "rear" head wound -- a half-truth! -- but no, that doesn't mean it was an exit wound. After all the blater I've read about this, it turns out that it isn't really necessary to believe that the Parkland doctors were "wrong", if they just didn't see the full extent of the "defect", because they didn't attempt any forensic examination to determine either the full extent of the head wound or the direction the bullet was going. That would explain why, after the autopsy results were published, McClelland (the reputed source of your sketch) agreed with the autopsy's analysis of the head wound, as did most of the other Parkland doctors (e.g. Perry and Carrico). But the conspiracy hucksters continue to use selected quotes, exaggerate and misrepresent what some of those quotes actually say, ignore contradictory statements by the very same people, and ignore what the autopsy doctors really found that can explain what the Parkland doctors saw.

2. Between the entry wound in the back and the throat wound, there were three other points of internal damage forming a straight line. The back wound was definitely an entry wound. The shirt collarband shows that the throat wound was an exit wound, because the fibers were bent forward. (And we saw in the other thread how ridiculous a certain "conspiracy nut" got when trying to deny that the shirt holes are bullet holes.) And there's just nothing mysterious about the fact that a buttoned collar and tie would contain the damage that's normally (but not necessarily) associated with an exit wound, so the fact that the doctors thought it was an entry wound is not really significant. And sorry, but the ludicrous notion that JFK was hit by two bullets going in exactly opposite directions, and both of them just disappeared, is simply too absurd to qualify as an "hypothesis" in my book.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

5. Same old tired responses. Sad. Really sad.

[TruthIsAll]

6. JSW-81, are you there?

Still waiting..

[jsw_81]

10. Yes, I'm here

And I'm flattered that you started an entire thread just to refute a post I made in another one. I'm pretty sure that's against the rules, but that's something for the moderators to decide.

I suppose that I waste my time refuting each and every one of your points, but I'm just not going to. Not because I'm afraid or unable to, but because I've noticed that conspiracy believers like you have allowed your belief in a conspiracy to become your new religion, and no amount of evidence will ever change your mind.

I could post eyewitness testimony of dozens of people who heard shots from the Book Depository, but you'd just say that they were confused or part of the conspiracy.

I could show you photo after photo and film after film that supports a shot from the rear, but you'd just say they were doctored (with no proof, of course). This is actually kind of funny because before someone pointed out that Kennedy's head actually goes forward after being hit (stongly indicating a shot from the rear), you people were screaming that the Zapruder film was PROOF of a shot from the front. But now you say it has been doctored by conspirators. Make up your mind already!

I could direct you to some of the finest scientists in the country, scientists who have examined the evidence and concluded that Oswald acted alone, but you'd almost certainly say that their analysis was "flawed" in some way, and you might even say that they are actually part of the "cover up" that has supposedly lasted forty years.

Hell, even if I provided you with a taped confession by Lee Oswald that he acted alone you'd say that it was fabricated and that the conspiracy was even bigger than you thought.

So no, I'm not going to waste my time on these threads any more. We here at DU have far more pressing issues to worry about these days (namely, electing a Democratic president in 2004), but feel free to ignore all the damning evidence while worshipping at the altar of your high priest Oliver Stone. This is a free country and you have the right to believe in any kind of nonsense, no matter how absurd or ridiculous it may be. Have fun.

[TruthIsAll]

15. You say could do all that. But you won't. Cause you can't. n/t

,,

[William Seger]

8. What a brilliant rebuttal

Let me know when you're ready to explain that forward head snap by a shot from the front. And now, I also need for you to explain why the "back and to the left" was delayed until 1/9th second after the bullet was long gone, and why that "lurch" accelerates after it gets started.

What's sad is your belief that these issues will just go away if "TruthIsAll" and "Media_Lies_Daily" ignore them.

[TruthIsAll]

9. Still looking for hte course "Physics of the Head" at school.

Can't find it anywhere. Only Physics 101. Your abbreviated picture sequence conveniently ignores the full video. back to the left.

Massive head wound. Just look at the sketch. It was an EXIT wound. They all said it was. Give it up. How do you explain the picture. How did they retrieve the back of his head?

Sorry, the autopsy observers agreed with the Parkland doctors.
And I believe the FIRST impressions of the 30 or so who observed the wound first hand.

I know what your problem is. You don't believe the government would lie. Period. Think about that. You disbelieve the unvarnished facts and testimony, which were twisted and/or ignored by the Warren Commission and the HSCA.

You are obviously very knowledgable. But you are either in strong denial or have a vested interest in promoting your pablum. I am just an ordinary citizen who has no agenda but to learn the truth.

I would like your answers to the following:
Do you believe the government always tells the truth?
Do you believe that political assassinations never occurred in the U.S.?

Do you believe that there has ever been a government coverup?
If you agree that there has been a coverup, is that by definition a conspiracy?

[William Seger]

12. Oh, I guess you're too busy to read what I wrote...

... or click on that link that has an astonishingly thorough investigation of what's shown on the Zapruder film. Let me post that link for you again: http://karws.gso.uri.edu/JFK/Scientific_topics/Physics_of_head_shot/Physics_of_the_head_shot.html

"Massive head wound. Just look at the sketch. It was an EXIT wound. They all said it was. Give it up. How do you explain the picture. How did they retrieve the back of his head?" So, I wasted a lot of time (on you, anyway) explaining the very things that your still asking about? You might at least throw in a phrase or two that indicated that you actually read what I wrote.

"I am just an ordinary citizen who has no agenda but to learn the truth." Well, you fooled me. For example, it's a truth that the Zapruder film shows JFK's head snapping forward when he was shot, and you seem to be highly allergic to that truth because it spoils your unsubstantiated shot-from-the-front hypothesis.

"I would like your answers to the following:
Do you believe the government always tells the truth?"

Of course not! But your "logic" seems to be that the government always lies, so we can ignore the facts.

"Do you believe that political assassinations never occurred in the U.S.?"

Every murder of a head of state that I'm aware of was a "political" assassination, so what's your point?

"Do you believe that there has ever been a government coverup?"

More "logic"...

"If you agree that there has been a coverup, is that by definition a conspiracy?"

Well, no, a "conspiracy" would mean involvement in the planning or the execution. But in fact, I really do think the WC intentionally avoided investigating what the CIA was doing back then. They really were involved in assassination conspiracies, for example.

All I'm saying here is that I believe, with about 99.9% confidence, that Oswald killed JFK with two shots from the TSBD, and there doesn't seem to be any "credible" evidence that anyone else was involved. Show me some "credible" evidence and I'll change my mind -- again.

[TruthIsAll]

17. Seger, I have one question...

Ok, suppose I accept your claim that JFK reacted to a rear head shot by moving two inches to the front.

Then could you please explain how he immediately fell backwards? To the left?

From Physics 101: An object in motion tends to stay in motion - and in the same direction of the initial force applied to the object.

Why didn't JFK just continue forward until he hit the back of Connally seat? Oh, the reverse nuerological effect. Right.

Bill, did you ever go hunting? Did you ever shoot an animal that fell backwards? Towards you?

Human beings are part of the animal kingdom. But I guess you believe that the laws of classical physics do not apply to humans. Only to deer and such.

[William Seger]

18. Short answer: Alvarez was right -- "jet effect"

I guess you're not going to read that link?

I don't remember now who it was that posted a link to a rebuttal of Alvarez's "jet effect" argument, but basically that rebuttal was that Alvarez hadn't taken proper account of the momentum that would be directly transferred to the head, in the direction of the bullet, while the bullet was passing through the head. In essence, the rebuttal was that punching through a skull was not the same as punching through a melon (which Alvarez used simply as an experimental demonstration of the effect, not as an assumption in the calculation). My (common sense, not mathematical) response to that was that the forward snap did show the effects of that direct momentum -- i.e. that there was no need to explain away any lack of forward momentum -- and that the chin hitting the chest, followed by recoil, would then contribute to the "back and left" motion. The article seemed to be trying to refute the idea that the "jet effect" could completely negate the effects of the forward momentum, which is not really necessary.

One thing to keep in mind, since you have a keen interest in physics, is that this kind of direct momentum cannot be greater than the "kick" of the rifle, even if all the bullet's momentum is transferred to the target (which it wasn't in this case, since the bullet didn't stay in the skull). So, the idea that a shot from behind should have thrown JFK against Connally's seat is an idea that comes from movies, not physics.

But Rahn's analysis definitely does take into account the forward momentum directly imparted by the bullet, by simply estimating the entrance speed and using a reasonable estimate for the exit speed. The speed difference lets you directly calculate the amount of energy "dumped", without any calculations of how hard a skull is, estimates of how much sheer is required to punch a 6.5 mm hole, etc.

But then we have to account for the fact that, after the bullet punched a tunnel through the skull, a pressure wave spread through the skull creating a "temporary cavity" and a pressure that could have been in the range of 200 to 300 atmospheres, which is what caused the head to explode. Then, we have a different physics to deal with: the vector of the momentum (mass*velocity) of that ejected matter. As we see from the Zapruder film, this explosion developed in the temple area first, which gives us the direction of the vector. Even without an assumption that this area was the exit wound, this area makes sense mainly because that part of the skull is thinner.

The result: "back and to the left" because that was the direction of the "jet effect" vector. That motion should have two characteristics that are different from any movement caused by the direct transfer of momentum from the bullet while it was passing through the head: 1) it would occur noticably after the bullet had left the head; 2) it would cause an accelerating motion while the matter was being ejected. Both of these characteristics are shown in the Zapruder film.

Now, if you really followed that, then you'll notice that the same motion really could result from a shot from the front. At least it's possible, because the effect is not necessarily back toward the shot: All that would be necessary for that to happen would be the same front-right release of the "jet" vector. That wouldn't be the most likely thing to happen, however, since a rear exit wound would have been larger than the front entrance wound, but it is possible.

And that's exactly why it's the forward head snap that tells us what really happened. There just isn't any way to reconcile that motion with a shot from the front. The shot came from the rear.

[Solomon]

11. That's quite a bullet since it makes Jackie's head

snap forward too. In fact it looks as if it made the whole car snap forward, the seats and everything! Wow! What kind of bullet was it?

[William Seger]

13. Lame dodge. That's just blurring

The head snap is there; the apparent distance between his head and tha seat can't possible increase because of blurring; it could only decrease if the head didn't really move. (In fact, that's exactly what you think you're seeing with the distance from Jackie's head to the door handle: The blurring also makes it look like the door handle moves back.) Look at the apparent distance between the center of JFK's head and the center of Jackie's head -- not the edges.

If you'll read the link I posted, you'll see that the measurements used in the study went to great lengths to account for the blurring.

[TruthIsAll]

16. I will now destroy your argument completely.

You say:
Note that at this point, regardless of the direction it came from, the bullet is long gone, having passed completely through the head in about 0.3 milliseconds, and it cannot possibly impart any more momentum into JFK than it already has in frame 313. And here we clearly see what effect that momentum has had between frame 312 before the hit and 313 after the bullet is gone: The head has been forced forward (with the chin hitting the chest soon after or soon before 313), and JFK's right temple has exploded forward. The bullet is gone, yet the conspiracy hucksters insist that the head moving forward doesn't mean anything, and that the head being in about that same position in the next frame still doesn't mean anything, but when JFK starts the "back and to the left" movement in the frame after that -- at least 1/9th second after the bullet hit -- now we're somehow seeing the results of the momentum of the bullet. Nevermind, they say, that the leftward "lurch" actually starts off slowly and then accelerates; it was still caused by the impact.

Here is a straightforward explanation, based on a FULL, unbiased viewing of the Zapruder film:
1) JFK was first hit prior to farme 313- in the front of the NECK. He grabbed his throat, and bent forward.
2) Next, he was hit in the back, which moved him FORWARD slightly.
3) At Frame 313, he was hit in the front right temple and fell BACK and to the LEFT. This is obvious in subsequent frames after 313, which you conveniently ignore. Virtually ALL viewers (layman and technical) see it that way.

All your detailed contortions, misstatements, novel physics, and ignoring the full Zapruder evidence comes to naught.

The Zapruder film leads any reasonable person to just one conclusion. The final head shot came from behind Zapruder. Zapruder himself said that's what he heard while filming.

It's too bad the Warren Commission NEVER saw the film. If they had seen it in 1963, the Warren Commission would have never gotten away with the totally discredited, insane, ridiculous, unbelievable Magic Bullet Theory.

The Clay Shaw jury saw it in 1969. The jurors were interviewed after the trial and all agreed that they were convinced there was a second shooter, firing from the front. And that it WAS a conspiracy. They they did not feel the evidence was sufficient to convict Shaw. But why should we believe the jury? Why not? They agreed with the Parkland doctors and the autopsy attendees. But that is not enough for you.

It's too bad the American people didn't view the film until 1975. It was first shown on Giraldo Rivera's show. I remember it well. It caused an uproar. That's why the HSCA had to re-investigate. And that's when all the tortured "explanations" of JFK being hit in the back and falling backwards began.

By the way, you present these outrageous claims very well. You are a wonderful writer. Of fiction. You just keep pushing your two-frame analysis. I admire your persistence.

The only question I have is: WHY? What is your agenda? I bet you have written about the assassination? Your talent as a writer is a giveaway.

[William Seger]

19. Don't give up your day job (n/t)

[William Seger]

7. Some more

3. It seems the "neutron activation analysis" performed on the bullet fragments has been subjected to numerous criticisms, but the ones I've read didn't do much except raise doubts about the claimed degree of certainty of the results (plus, of course, the standard "they're all in on it so you can't believe anything they say" crap). Whatever; I'm not sure where the issue stands now, scientifically, and I don't have any strong opinions about it. I personally don't consider it to be all that vital, considering all the other physical evidence. Look at how silly this is, really: Forget about JFK and the single-shot theory for a minute and note that Connally was clearly shot from behind, from the direction of the TSBD where Oswald's rifle was found, and note that the bullet had certainly entered his thigh but wasn't there when he was examined in the ER. Now, would one of the "conspiracy nuts" here explain to be what's so damned mysterious or impossible about finding a bullet fired from Oswald's gun on a stretcher at the hospital? If that bullet hadn't been found, would there be the slightest doubt that Connally had been shot from the TSBD with Oswald's gun? (Well, sure, there would be nothing but doubt from the conspiracy hucksters, but I mean would there be any reasonable doubt, based on facts and logic?) Why would the "conspirators" bother "planting" that kind of unnecessary evidence, when it's clear that someone was firing at the limo from the building where Oswald's gun was found? (It would also be nice to know how they knew the bullet that "really" hit Connally from some other gun wasn't still in him.) So, what's the big deal? Well, it's really all about the "magic bullet": the obsessive compulsion of the conspiracists to attack each and every conclusion of the Warren Commission in order to create the illusion that there is evidence of a conspiracy.

But A), despite what the conspiracy hucksters insist, the WC report clearly says that the single-bullet theory is not really "crucial" to the single-shooter conclusion at all: Maybe the first shot hit Kennedy, instead of missing completely, and then the second hit Connally. And B), it has been demonstated it's not nearly as incredible as the hucksters insist if you consider the actual geometry instead of the intentional distortions. In fact, at the trajectory it went through JFK, hitting Connally was almost unavoidable. And C), given that it was a "full metal jacket" military bullet, there's nothing incredible about it going JFK's neck and Connally's torso without deforming much, since that's exactly what FMJ is designed for. (The Geneva Convention requires FMJs to minimize the extra wound damage that's done by deforming bullets, whereas that same ammo would be illegal in most states for deer hunting precisely because it tends to punch right through a deer, seriously wounding without killing immediately.) And D) if the bullet was slowed down and tumbling by passing through soft tissue first, there's nothing mysterious about it not having enough energy to deform very much when it hit Connally's wrist (and it definitely is deformed, not "pristine".) So, this really seems to be yet another case of refusing to see the forest while pissing on the trees.

Anyway, for anyone interested in the NAA results: http://karws.gso.uri.edu/JFK/Scientific_topics/NAA/NAA.html

4, 5, 6, and 7. Yet more silliness: A) The attempts to raise doubts about whether of not it was even Oswald's rifle, when the evidence is overwhelming that it was; and B) the attempt to raise the possibility that maybe Oswald really did bring "curtain rods" to work on the very same day that the conspirators planned to kill JFK with his rifle. But that's not the silly part; the silliness is that all this smoke blowing is aimed at implying that Oswald was framed. The clearest evidence that Oswald was not framed was his own behavior following the assassination -- even if you insist on denying the extremely strong evidence that he killed Tippit. Again, it seems that the obsessive compulsion to attack each and every conclusion of the Warren Commission is at work here, not facts and reason.

8. "But how come no prints were found for any of his co-workers?" Maybe they were, but the thing is, it seems that none of his co-workers brought "curtain rods" to work that day, or had a rifle disappear from their garage and reappear on the 6th floor of the TSBD. The prints on the boxes don't prove anything by themselves; they just make it much harder to claim that Oswald was framed. Sorry.

9. More pointless "maybe he was framed" stuff, which brings us to...

10. "There is no evidence that he fled. He took a bus." Ah ha ha ha ha ha ha! Good one! And when the bus got stuck in traffic, there is no evidence he "fled" again; he took a cab! Please don't say stuff like that when I'm drinking coffee. "And there is no evidence that he killed Tippet." Absolutely false! In addition to the witnesses who ID'ed him, one bullet and four casings were traced to Oswald's pistol -- exactly the same pistol he pulled when confronted in the theater, which bring us to...

11. "By this time, he knew he had been set up." What!? And just how did he "know" he had been set up? Please explain to me, if Oswald was innocent, why didn't he stay in the TSBD and watch the investigation? Okay, so within minutes of the assassination, he got bored with the whole thing and had a sudden urge to see an old movie. But please explain to me why he thought it would be a good idea to go home first and get his pistol?

12. "Many heard (and some saw) shots coming from the grassy knoll." Let me ask you something: Have you ever been down-range of a shot from a high-powered rifle? I have, but only once: in an Army Advanced Infantry Training (AIT) class that was specifically designed to teach us how to identify where a rifle shot came from. It turns out it's not as easy to do as the conspiracists would like to believe. I don't know why I've never seen this subject discussed with respect to the people who thought they heard shots from the knoll, but the fact is, if a high-powered rifle shot passes close by and you don't understand what you're really hearing, you'll almost certainly misidentify the direction to the rifle. Almost certainly. The reason is that the bullet is traveling faster than sound, and therefore it creates a "sonic boom" that sounds like bullwhip (for the same reason). The AIT class had us sitting in bleachers in a depression while shots were fired overhead. The method that we were taught was called the "crack-thump" method because the idea was to learn to ignore the "crack" and listen for the "thump". The reason is, if a shot is coming more or less toward you, the "crack" of the sonic boom arrives before the "thump" of the actual cartridge explosion. If you don't know what you're hearing, the "thump" sounds like an echo. The problem is, the apparent direction of the "crack" is very misleading -- it depends on the full geometry of the shot, not just the direction to the rifle. And here's what's really interesting about it: a common perception is that the "crack" sounds like it came from a direction more or less perpendicular to the actual trajectory, just because the sonic boom comes at you from that direction! So, excuse me, but the reports of hearing shots from the knoll are completely unconvincing.

And then there's the "puff of smoke" business. My first thought when I heard that story was, "What, he was firing a musket?" The thing is, smoke from a "modern" rifle cartridge is a just a very thin gray cloud that's hard to see from any distance, and it dissipates almost immediately. So it really cracked me up when I read about how Stone had trouble getting that "puff of smoke" shot for JFK using a real rifle, so he had a prop guy blow smoke from a bellows!

[William Seger]

14. ... and the rest.

13. More "maybe Oswald was framed" stuff. Yeah, maybe he was -- hell of a job of it, too -- and it's a damned shame that he played right into their hands by acting really, really guilty, not to mention having so much irrefutable circumstantial evidence lying around.

14. Apparently, a copy of Taylor Caldwell's, "The Arm in the Darkness" was found in a the library Oswald frequented with card in the back that had written on, "Due on September 9, 1963, Checked out by Lee Harvey Oswald." I'll give you this one -- I don't think it's very convincing at all -- but it's not particularly important, either.

15. It does sound to me like "adequate shot" would be a better description of Oswald's Marine shooting record. But those tests involved hitting targets up to 200 yards away, whereas hitting a target 50 or 75 yards away just isn't that tough even with the "iron sights", and the 4x scope effectively made those shots like they were 1/4 the actual distance. And let's look at his actual "score" on November 22: 1 complete miss, 1 near miss (assuming the head was the target), and 1 hit. Not really very spectacular at all, considering he was using a scope. But the real focus of the conspiracy hucksters is how difficult it would have been for Oswald to get off three aimed shots in 5.6 seconds. Although it's been proven that that's not impossible (contrary to the huckster assertions), the real (intentional) deception of the hucksters is the 5.6 second time limit, which was just an early guess. Give him 3 seconds between the first and second shots, then 4.8 seconds until the third shot, and yet another "profound mystery" disappears.

16. Money and wedding ring? Not really very meaningful, except as minor evidence that makes the "framed" hypothesis slightly less credible. It has to be taken in context of some extremely suscpicious things he did that day.

17. Oswald's brother? Again, not very convincing evidence by itself, but in context...

18. The previous assassination proves that Oswald was a sociopath, period. And "right/left" doesn't change the fact that Kennedy was involved in the Bay of Pigs, which managed to piss off both the pro-Casto folks because it was planned in the first place, and the anti-Casto folks because of his failure to support it after it was under way.

19. I think the point was that the main conclusions of the Warren Commission agree very well with the substantiated facts, yet conspiracy hucksters frequently make statements like yours, that "all the evidence points to a conspiracy." That just isn't true: doubts aren't "evidence"; refusing to accept established facts isn't "evidence"; and raising issues that would only be relevant if you could really prove a conspiracy doesn't constitute "evidence".

20. Nothing to argue here.