Posted on 11/21/2002 10:52:30 PM PST by mlo
Oh, the Secret Service claimed they had no personnel at that site and the trainmaster was killed in a head-on on a secluded Texas highway shortly after the assassination.
But we all know there is no conspiracy, don't we now?
Who is jlo and what makes you think I'm related to this person?
There are plants out there whose primary goal in life is to quel any kind inquiry into matters such as this.
I doubt it very much, unless you are describing yourself.
Your response is well reasoned. mlo is not.
I think you have a problem seeing reason in anything you don't like. If you want to post a well reasoned response, go ahead. You haven't yet.
It has to be his way or no way.
That seems to fit your own attitude better.
He didn't report seeing any gunfire.
Additionally, a woman stated that she saw a man with a rifle on the knoll, and when she asked what he was doing, he replied that he was with the Secret Service.
Nobody that day reported seeing a man with a rifle on the knoll, and nobody identified themselves as Secret Service. As I've said before, there is a lot mythology attached to this case.
Not really. The bullet pushed the head forward and down for an instant, then penetrated. It does not impart massive momentum to the body. I think the talk about a "neuromuscular reaction" makes it seem more mysterious than it is. Just keep in mind that you aren't talking about an inanimate object here. It was a living body. He fell back into the seat. That's all.
And a lot of others have concluded otherwise. The autopsy was fraught with errors and tons of weird discrepencies.
Every single medical panel that has been able to review the autopsy evidence has come to the same conclusion. Every one. Only a few of the photos have been leaked, so only those panels have had access to all the information.
The HSCA concluded two snipers, remember. I know this was based of the accoustic evidence, but still, it shows that experts can disagree.
The disagreement wasn't over the medical evidence. The HSCA accepted the acoustics but was forced to postulate a second sniper whose shot missed entirely. That's because no other evidence supported a shot from the grassy knoll.
Is this true? Even the police tape recorded four "shot-like" sounds...
Yes, it is true that most witnesses reported three shots, and most reported they came from the TSBD. Later I'll look up the cite for you. There are no shots on the police recording.
True, but that's a little misleading. There was a lot of bushes and stuff to hide behind, and everyone had his eyes on the President at the time.
It isn't misleading at all. If anyone had fired a shot from the grassy knoll there would be untold numbers of people who couldn't have missed it. In fact, not one person reported a shot from the grassy knoll that day.
Ther may not be ballistic evidence, but there *is* plenty of "medical evidence" that raises, at least, tons of suspicion.
Not really. Feel free to cite it if you think so.
The Willis photo only shows a shape that may be a person. It does not show a man with a rifle. There were numerous people in the vicinity of the knoll at the time, so it's not surprising that one might show up in this picture.
Well, okay - one thing to add. People who doubt the official account really need to take some time, go to Dallas, go up to the 6'th floor, and look out the windows onto Dealey Plaza. Once you do that, it becomes really difficult to do anything but admit that it was very much a makeable shot for Oswald.
Also, you might find this interesting, if you didn't see it the first time around ;)
No, the "Future" JFK himself did it from the grassy knoll...
I saw it on "Red Dwarf"!
PS...he's called "Cancer-Man"...don't let the PC mafia change the "Truth"...it's "out there"!
Well, okay - maybe it wasn't 400 billion people. But by the time you get through totaling up all the people who were supposed to have been a part of it, it sure seems like it ;)
The HSCA forensic pathology panel concluded that President Kennedy was struck by two bullets from the rear.
(Cyril H. Wecht, M.D., coroner of Allegheny County, Pa. dissented and did not accept this; he was outvoted 8-1.)
The HSCA said: "Because this conclusion appears to be inconsistent with the backward motion of the President's head ...the committee consulted a wound ballistics expert...
The expert concluded that
"nerve damage from a bullet entering the President's head could have caused his back muscles to tighten which, in turn, could have caused his head to move toward the rear."
That's it. Now take a look for yourself at the Zapruder film, where they zoom in on the head. Look at it at normal speed, and at slower speeds.
What you see doesn't look anything remotely possible that could be caused by "tightening back muscles". No way. It looks like something smacked him hard in the forehead.
I admit I'm not an expert.
What I find hard to understand is anyone actually *viewing* this, and actually thinking to themselves, "oh, yeah - I can see how tightening back muscles could have caused this."
What I *can* understand, is someone *reading* the explanation, and accepting it. But after *viewing*, no way.
*I'm* thinking that the HSCA should have said, "since there's no way any sane person could view this and accept the tightening-back-muscle theory, maybe Cyril Wecht (the committee's dissenting member) was right and there *was* a shot from the front."
(no slam intended at anyone who does think it looks like muscle tightening.)
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.