Posted on 11/24/2008 12:59:19 PM PST by AJKauf
Where did the bullet go? (HINT: Yes, it was found in/did damage to the car.)
Why did it make a massive entrance wound and a small round cratered exit wound, and has that ever happened anywhere else in the long sad sordid history of people shooting each other?
What is the consistent result of the frequently repeated test of firing a 6.5mm M-C bullet into a human skull filled with “brain” analog, as far as direction of skull movement is concerned?
A copy of the Zapruder film, stabilized to eliminate camera shake (though some frames show smear-blurs resulting from shake), is widel available. When you have found one, which you will after expending minimal effort, locate the frame showing the head shot and the frame just prior to it, and determine the direction and rough distance of the movement caused by bullet impact.
What’s a .38 auto? Do you mean .380 ACP?
Him too?
And C.S. Lewis...
Notably, the Warren Commission did not determine that there was no conspiracy, only that it was “probable” that Lee Harvey Oswald was the assassin and that he acted alone. Separately, in various contexts, all members of the Commission expressed the view that there was a conspiracy.
The House Assassinations Committee report concluded that Kennedy was killed as the result of a conspiracy by members of organized crime. Although disputed, forensic analysis of an audiotape indicated that there were at least four and likely more shots in Dealey Plaza, including one from the grassy knoll.
A recent book, "Brothers," revealed that Robert Kennedy suspected that JFK had been killed by a conspiracy involving the Mafia, Cuban exiles, and rogue former CIA officers. Robert Kennedy sent an emissary to the Soviet government to assure them that he knew that his brother was not killed by the Soviets or Castro but as the result of a domestic conspiracy.
For these and many other reasons, a conspiracy cannot be ruled out and Hunt's statement cannot fairly be cast aside as unworthy of consideration.
Because in the Zapruder film it appears (to me) that JFK was hit from both sides, frontal and rear.................
I had the same question, and I thought the same thing.
You can't really tell from the available information.
I understand what you are saying, but you are pointing to DOCTORED FACTS for your argument.
Let me give one example. The amount of ‘spray’ coming out THE BACK and the brains on the back trunk had to come from the back of the head. But no photos of the back OR front of the head show such an explosive outward movement. It had to come from somewhere?
Another one is the curcular ‘crater’ ripple on the front forehead where the bullet (i believe) strikes
...I’m a reader, but thousands of pages to seek and find, I’ll let yer know when I become enlightened to yer “Theory”...Oh, BTW, at the nest, there’s glass to prevent the curious from looking out the window. They don’t want folks to see that there’s no way anyone could have shot Kennedy from the front at that location. (Joke)...
“Because in the Zapruder film it appears (to me) that JFK was hit from both sides, frontal and rear.................”
Why, because of the back-and-to-the-left snap? I suggest you look at it again. The head clearly moves forward before it moves back, and the right front is clearly what explodes, not at all the rear.
“The amount of ‘spray’ coming out THE BACK and the brains on the back trunk had to come from the back of the head.”
What on earth are you talking about? I’ve seen the film, and have never, ever seen any spray coming out the back nor any brain matter on the trunk. I think you imagined them.
“Notably, the Warren Commission did not determine that there was no conspiracy, only that it was ‘probable’ that Lee Harvey Oswald was the assassin and that he acted alone”
Methinks this is an example of the difficulty of “proving a negative” that we hear so much about. The simple truth is, they found no convincing evidence of conspiracy, and to my mind no one else has since. At least the Commission had a little humility, which is more than most people give them credit for.
“The House Assassinations Committee report concluded that Kennedy was killed as the result of a conspiracy by members of organized crime. Although disputed, forensic analysis of an audiotape indicated that there were at least four and likely more shots in Dealey Plaza, including one from the grassy knoll.”
The Committee acted extrememly stupidly, in myu opinion. They pretty much followe4d the Warren Commission all the way, then desperately clung to the motorcycle tape, a tape that hasn’t just been disputed but pretty much debunked. The timelines don’t match up with the various films. As for the mafia connection, I am not aware of what evindence the Committee relied on, so I can’t speak intelligently on that matter. But I will say that I am not aware of any solid evidence proving the mafia was involved.
I suggest you check out Vincent Bugliosi’s book. No need to trudge through the whole thing (1,500 pages or so). Skip ahead to where he covers the 50 or so pieces of evidence pointing to Oswald as the killer and where he covers the 50 or so pieces of evidence pointing to Oswald as acting alone. It’s pretty convincing.
“I understand what you are saying, but you are pointing to DOCTORED FACTS for your argument.”
What proof do you have that they are doctored? None? That’s what I thought.
So no evidence then? That’s what I thought.
That is considerably more in the way of doubt than a metaphysical possibility that there could have been a conspiracy.
(2) The House Assassinations Committee investigation was flawed by internal squabbles, obstructionism, the limitations of technology, and inadequate time. Their work remains useful in settling some issues and raising others.
(3) There is much evidence that is suggestive of organized crime involvement in Kennedy's assassination. For example:
— Oswald's uncle was a numbers runner for Carlos Marcello, the Mafia boss of New Orleans;
— Marcello hated and threatened to kill the Kennedys because Bobby had him deported and dumped in rural Guatemala and then, when he returned, put him on trial in November of 1963;
— A frequent Mafia tactic is to use a disposable nutcase as the gunman in a high profile assassination, and Marcello is reported to have bragged that was how they got rid of Kennedy;
— Santos Trafficante bragged in advance that Kennedy would not be a problem in the future because he would be hit;
— Jack Ruby was affiliated with the Mafia in Dallas, Chicago, and New Orleans; and
-— mobsters Roselli and Giancana were murdered shortly before they were scheduled to testify for the House Assassinations Committee.
(4) I have not read Bugliosi’s work. I look forward to it.
I did not "insult the Board" as you said/suggested.
If you believe that everyone on FR.com is in accord with you concerning the Warren Commission Oswald whitewash of the JFK murder conspiracy then you likely will continue to trust only your own counsel when it concerns other matters of independent thinking.
Do you actually believe that Oswald gave himself a black eye just before he was murdered in the police station?
Do you even know what the word "thug" means?
Do you feel insulted again? Good work. You have been.
http://olyblog.net/did-oswald-act-alone
Excuse me genius, when Oswald was apprehended at the Movie Theatre he punched the officer in the face and pulled a gun and said “This is it!” and tried to fire it and was manhandled, I’m sorry he got a shiner for his troubles. You call that thuggery? Did you know that? Or do you just like being a wise-ass?
I’ll do you a favor, here is a link to the 90 minute no commercial documentary by the BBC which if you have any critical thinking capacity will make you think twice about any conspiracy theories. I give JFK conspiracy theories as much credence as 9/11 theories, none at all, and only the gullible or uninformed still believe in a conspiracy.
Scroll about halfway down, the video is embedded there.
http://olyblog.net/did-oswald-act-alone
You never answered the questions in post 174, typical, for the conspiracy crowd. Your claim that Oswald was a “patsy” and calling everyone who points to Oswald as Kool-Aid drinkers doesn’t reinforce your “argument”.
I don’t know if you’re just a cop-hater or not, but explain the evidence against Oswald in post 174 and explain his killing of Officer Tippett and explain why he punched an officer in the face, shouted “This is it!” and pulled a gun on the Dallas police officers in the movie theatre. Odd reaction for an innocent “patsy”. The Dallas PD showed great restraint considering they were apprehending a suspected cop-killer who had just punched a cop in the face and pulled a gun, a shiner and a scrape on the forehead from being taken to the ground would be the least you can expect.
Actually Oswald is a sad and tragic figure, his mother was a mess, moving constantly, by the time he was in the 9th grade he had attended ELEVEN different schools, often being truant and had little to no friends. Oswald’s mother moved 21 times by the time he escaped his mother by going into the Marines by age 17, he tried to get in at 16 but was rejected. He idolized his older brother who also escaped their rotten mother by enlisting ASAP. As a teenager he was already infatuated by Marxism and spent his sad, lonely times reading Das Kapital and The Communist Manifesto. The boy was troubled as troubled could be, his brother is fully convinced he acted alone, even conspiracy hero Mark Lane now believes Oswald acted alone.
You can continue to act the buffoon all you want, the only people you will impress are other people who are uninformed. It doesn’t mean you and others aren’t smart people overall or talented in whatever your field of endeavor is, but on this subject the Kool-Aid is strong, except it’s the conspiracy crowd doing the drinking.
Please check in after you watch that documentary and tell me what you think.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.