The Kennedy Thread [Archive] - The SuperHeroHype Forums

Mr Parker

12-03-2003, 02:24 PM

Originally posted by Tukiluka
Was there a conspiracy to kill Kennedy? Most likely, I'd say yes. Was Lee Harvey Oswald more than the "loser" many people believe he was? Yes. He had some pretty damn interesting credentials no matter what.

The movie JFK is a great MOVIE. But it is only a movie. While I think it plants the seed of inquiry that we should all have regarding the assasination, it is indeed quite flawed. Garrison probably was on a witch hunt, but he did at least raise interesting questions.

My personal theory is kinda along the lines of the movie. I think that higher ups in the government (CIA, Joint Chiefs, etc) were angry at Kennedy's handling of the Bay of Pigs. Also, while Kennedy was very much a part of the system, he was threatening to reign in some of the sacred cows in America at that time (CIA, FBI, etc.). Factions of the CIA, allied with the Mafia on a lower level, could have done such a thing. As is brought up in the movie, Lyndon Johnson, J. Edgar Hoover and Richard Nixon were probably involved in any cover up after the fact. Not because they were in on it, but because they knew their own power would be threatened if they let harm come to the system that gave them the power they enjoyed. And if the public knew the government had killed their elected leader, the sytem as we know it would have collapsed.

No matter what happened, it's pretty interesting to speculate.

I just got back from Dallas a couple weeks ago for the 40th anniversary of the JFK assassination.What Tuliluka said is so very close to the truth.I know a history teacher that has been researching the case for 37 years now and I agree with him that the movie is very close to the truth on what really happened. When Kennedy decided to withdraw from vietnam,that was the final straw for the CIA to want him to be removed because LBJ reversed kennedys withdrawal plan and a full esculation of war was the result.Nixon,Hoover and LbJ were accomplices after the fact.Many people saw a 2nd guman behind the picket fence and the warren commission totally ignored or did not call people to the stand who had a story that did not go along with their own version.People who did reveal seeing a gunman behind the fence all wound up as mysterious deaths.I have talked with witnesses myself over the years that have said their testimony was totally ignored.The warren commission was the biggest con job and lie of the century.People who believe in that fairy tale warren commission report that Oswald did it, are extremely naive.There is not one shread of evidence to proove that Lee Harvey Oswald could POSSIBLY have pulled the trigger.:rolleyes: the movie was defenitely a hell of a lot closer to the truth than the warren commission report is.

I SEE SPIDEY

12-03-2003, 02:28 PM

*Mr. Parker* not having webbshooters in the Spider-Man movie is the reason that JFK was killed.

Mr Parker

12-03-2003, 02:34 PM

Originally posted by MJZ
Stone's film was a joke and so was Jim Garrison in real life. There was no conspiracy, you bleeding idiots. It doesn't sell a lot of books to come out with the truth and say that Oswald acted alone. However, Gerald Posner DID do such a thing with his book Case Closed, and he, his wife, and publisher, received constant harassment from conspiracy kooks and was even accused of working for the CIA. However, the media hailed his book and it's never been convincingly challenged. All the declassifed documents and advances in science and technology have only served to further solidify his conclusions. I'm glad to see someone mentioned the Peter Jennings special.

Like the old saying goes, "Great events often have small causes."
Actually its the warren commission thats a total joke and Garrison was close to the truth back then.Gerald Posner is such a pathectic liar its not even funny.That book CASE CLOSED is so full of holes and lies its unreal.All the classified documents and sceince have actually done nothing but prove oswald could not possibly have pulled the trigger.You cant believe anything the major media tells you,if you did your research,you would see that POSNERs law firm DOES work for the CIA also.that Peter Jennings special was just more propaganda to fool people like you because they know they CAN fool you.

Mr Parker

12-03-2003, 02:37 PM

I SEE SPIDEY take your spiderman discussion to the spiderman section,this isnt the section to talk about that stupid movie.

I SEE SPIDEY

12-03-2003, 02:43 PM

Originally posted by Mr Parker
I SEE SPIDEY take your spiderman discussion to the spiderman section,this isnt the section to talk about that stupid movie. no, you mess with me, i mess with you:)

wobbly

12-03-2003, 04:07 PM

Was there a conspiracy?
Well, thanks to my Dad's fascination in the matter Ive seen a good number of films and documentaries handling the assasination and imo, based on all I've seen heard and read (both fact and fiction), I'd have to say yes.

There are a number of suspects who could have been involved, all with motive and opportunity from the CIA, FBI, Mafia to Big Business, but any suggestions on just who did what where and when requires speculation rather than hard evidence.

But its when you do examine the hard evidence that the argument for Oswald acting alone (or acting at all) falls apart.

According to the Warren commission Oswald allegedly fired off 3 shots from a dodgy rifle in less than 7 seconds, scoring 2 direct hits (one of them the infamous 'magic bullet') missing with the other. Scoring 2 hits on a moving target in the same time from the same rifle is a feat even top marskmen have trouble emulating, and at odds with the records showing Oswald's rifle skills were known from his army career to be nowhere near up to such a task.

Then the aforementioned Magic Bullet, concocted by the commission to get around the problem that if a fourth shot had been fired they would have been forced to admit there had to be a second shooter, and therefore a conspiracy.
This bullet apparently struck JFK in the back approximately 3-5 inches below the top of his right shoulder making a hole that was described during the autopsy as being at approximately a 45 - 60 degrees downward angle. This bullet then went upward, exited his throat and then returned to it original downward angle to strike the Governor.
This same bullet, having hit two bodies, passing through bone and cartilidge, was later found in implausibly pristine condition (conveniently connecting the bullet to the rifle found in the book depository).

And there's the Zapruder footage.
It shows that when hit by the fatal shot JFK's head jerks backwards, and matter is blown backwards.
It doesn't take a degree in physics to realise a bullet from behind (where Oswald was supposed to be) would have forced his head forwards, and blown his brain matter forwards.
Now I've read and heard debunkers try to explain this one, the best anyone's done is to suggest that Kennedy was wearing a brace on his back, which would have kept him rigidly upright even when hit by a shot from behind. All I can say is the next time you see a documentary showing the footage, make up your own mind about just which direction the bullet is spreading JFK's brain.

Anyway, even with these doubts about the only hard evidence there is, history still records (thanks to the Warren Commision) that Lee Harvey Oswald was the lone gunman.
The truth is that it has never been proven, never mind beyond 'reasonable doubt', that Oswald acted alone, or even acted at all, in the assasination, and sadly it never will.

MJZ

12-03-2003, 04:56 PM

Originally posted by Mr Parker
Actually its the warren commission thats a total joke and Garrison was close to the truth back then.Gerald Posner is such a pathectic liar its not even funny.That book CASE CLOSED is so full of holes and lies its unreal.All the classified documents and sceince have actually done nothing but prove oswald could not possibly have pulled the trigger.You cant believe anything the major media tells you,if you did your research,you would see that POSNERs law firm DOES work for the CIA also.that Peter Jennings special was just more propaganda to fool people like you because they know they CAN fool you.

Please, you're one of the village idiots around here. If it was up to me, I would've banned you, your boyfriend bakerboy, spiderfreddie, and the rest of the trolls long ago.

MJZ

12-03-2003, 05:09 PM

Originally posted by wobbly

Anyway, even with these doubts about the only hard evidence there is, history still records (thanks to the Warren Commision) that Lee Harvey Oswald was the lone gunman.
The truth is that it has never been proven, never mind beyond 'reasonable doubt', that Oswald acted alone, or even acted at all, in the assasination, and sadly it never will.

It was proven. Look into all these conspiracy nuts who've written books, films, docs,etc... Someone posted this on another board and it bears repeating:

Look at it this way. No conspiracy theory can account for all the facts of the case, leaving the conspiracy theorist groping for some nebulous, indeterminate plot against the president.

All the facts of the case can, however, be explained by supposing Oswald acted alone.

Mr Parker

12-03-2003, 05:10 PM

Originally posted by MJZ
Please, you're one of the village idiots around here. If it was up to me, I would've banned you, your boyfriend bakerboy, spiderfreddie, and the rest of the trolls long ago.

typical insults when you got no counter argument to give,how pathectic.

Mr Parker

12-03-2003, 05:13 PM

MJZ

12-03-2003, 05:16 PM

Originally posted by Mr Parker
typical insults when you got no counter argument to give,how pathectic.

This is from a review of Stone's film on Amazon, beautifully said, and it pretty much sums it up.

Garrison had no credible evidence, changed theories more often than he changed his shirt, and relied on a cast of witnesses that would make the average county jail population look like the Chamber of Commerce by comparison. He proceeded to railroad forward a prosecution of Clay Shaw that was so transparent it became a national embarrasment. When the case went to trial, it was not Garrison who courageously argued it in court (like the movie depicts). He assigned that suicide mission to his deputies. He had started his investigation in early 1966, arrested Shaw over a year later in March 1967, then took nearly two more years to get the case to trial. He thus had over three years to investigate and assemble his proof, but when it finally went to the jury, the evidence was so insubstantial that in 45 minutes (and just one ballot) they acquitted Shaw. For a prosecutor, that's like getting pantsed in a Louisiana downpour. One juror later reported they would have been back in half the time, but a few of them needed to use the restroom before returning to court.

Mr Parker

12-03-2003, 05:16 PM

Originally posted by wobbly
Was there a conspiracy?
Well, thanks to my Dad's fascination in the matter Ive seen a good number of films and documentaries handling the assasination and imo, based on all I've seen heard and read (both fact and fiction), I'd have to say yes.

There are a number of suspects who could have been involved, all with motive and opportunity from the CIA, FBI, Mafia to Big Business, but any suggestions on just who did what where and when requires speculation rather than hard evidence.

But its when you do examine the hard evidence that the argument for Oswald acting alone (or acting at all) falls apart.

According to the Warren commission Oswald allegedly fired off 3 shots from a dodgy rifle in less than 7 seconds, scoring 2 direct hits (one of them the infamous 'magic bullet') missing with the other. Scoring 2 hits on a moving target in the same time from the same rifle is a feat even top marskmen have trouble emulating, and at odds with the records showing Oswald's rifle skills were known from his army career to be nowhere near up to such a task.

Then the aforementioned Magic Bullet, concocted by the commission to get around the problem that if a fourth shot had been fired they would have been forced to admit there had to be a second shooter, and therefore a conspiracy.
This bullet apparently struck JFK in the back approximately 3-5 inches below the top of his right shoulder making a hole that was described during the autopsy as being at approximately a 45 - 60 degrees downward angle. This bullet then went upward, exited his throat and then returned to it original downward angle to strike the Governor.
This same bullet, having hit two bodies, passing through bone and cartilidge, was later found in implausibly pristine condition (conveniently connecting the bullet to the rifle found in the book depository).

And there's the Zapruder footage.
It shows that when hit by the fatal shot JFK's head jerks backwards, and matter is blown backwards.
It doesn't take a degree in physics to realise a bullet from behind (where Oswald was supposed to be) would have forced his head forwards, and blown his brain matter forwards.
Now I've read and heard debunkers try to explain this one, the best anyone's done is to suggest that Kennedy was wearing a brace on his back, which would have kept him rigidly upright even when hit by a shot from behind. All I can say is the next time you see a documentary showing the footage, make up your own mind about just which direction the bullet is spreading JFK's brain.

Anyway, even with these doubts about the only hard evidence there is, history still records (thanks to the Warren Commision) that Lee Harvey Oswald was the lone gunman.
The truth is that it has never been proven, never mind beyond 'reasonable doubt', that Oswald acted alone, or even acted at all, in the assasination, and sadly it never will.

Very well spoken Wobbly.There is not a shread of evidence that proved that Oswald could POSSIBLY have done it.

Mr Parker

12-03-2003, 05:27 PM

Originally posted by MJZ
This is from a review of Stone's film on Amazon, beautifully said, and it pretty much sums it up.

Garrison had no credible evidence, changed theories more often than he changed his shirt, and relied on a cast of witnesses that would make the average county jail population look like the Chamber of Commerce by comparison. He proceeded to railroad forward a prosecution of Clay Shaw that was so transparent it became a national embarrasment. When the case went to trial, it was not Garrison who courageously argued it in court (like the movie depicts). He assigned that suicide mission to his deputies. He had started his investigation in early 1966, arrested Shaw over a year later in March 1967, then took nearly two more years to get the case to trial. He thus had over three years to investigate and assemble his proof, but when it finally went to the jury, the evidence was so insubstantial that in 45 minutes (and just one ballot) they acquitted Shaw. For a prosecutor, that's like getting pantsed in a Louisiana downpour. One juror later reported they would have been back in half the time, but a few of them needed to use the restroom before returning to court.

Yes the movie wasnt accurate in the respect that Garrison tried the whole case.Garrison did have his deputys do a lot of the trial work for him because he had no choice since he had some physical ailments back then to deal with.what they fail to mention is that Garrison later discovered that Cia operatives had penetrated his office with plants he did not know about and his office was bugged just like it showed in the movie.That was a huge advantage to the other side.they also fail to address that evidence that CLAW SHAW had ties to CIA was later proved to be true but Garrison could not prove it back then that Shaw was connected to the CIA because they were able to suppress that information from him.They also fail to address that the jury although Garrison failed to present evidence to them to convince them that Shaw was involved,that through the zapruder film,he WAS able to convince them that a conspiracy took place.We now know through the efforts of the ARRB which declassified some documents thanks to the film,that we now know that CLAW SHAW "DID" in fact have ties to the CIA which Garrison could not proove back then.

MJZ

12-03-2003, 05:31 PM

And aliens and UFOs have a resort at Area 51, Elvis is still alive, Pete Rose was framed,etc...

You're a silly fool. Anyone with half a brain and some patience can determine that what you just spouted was a lot of garbage that's been disproven time and again.

Tukiluka

12-03-2003, 05:41 PM

Mr Parker

12-03-2003, 05:45 PM

Originally posted by MJZ
And aliens and UFOs have a resort at Area 51, Elvis is still alive, Pete Rose was framed,etc...

You're a silly fool. Anyone with half a brain and some patience can determine that what you just spouted was a lot of garbage that's been disproven time and again.

No anyone with half a brain can see the warren commission is the biggest con job and biggest lie of the century.No I dont believe all that other stuff you said is true like some others do,and "your" the fool because you show that you believe all that propoganda and garbage the government tells you just like the mindless drone you are.You'll believe any crap they tell you no matter how absurd it is because you are incredibly naive.You just proved like so many others here do that when they are losing the argument,you have to result to name calling and insults.I'm done with you.

Atrax robustus

12-03-2003, 05:50 PM

MJZ

12-03-2003, 05:53 PM

Originally posted by Mr Parker
No anyone with half a brain can see the warren commission is the biggest con job and biggest lie of the century.No I dont believe all that other stuff you said is true like some others do,and "your" the fool because you show that you believe all that propoganda and garbage the government tells you just like the mindless drone you are.You'll believe any crap they tell you no matter how absurd it is.You just proved like so many others here do that when they are losing the argument,you have to result to name calling and insults.I'm done with you.

I take it you've read all 26 volumes of the Warren Report then? Or is your knowledge limited to Stone's film and Jim Marrs' Crossfire?

And Tukiluka, the comparison was a sound one, as Jim Marrs, the author of Crossfire(book on which Stone's film was based), has a book called "Alien Agenda" in which he tells us everything about UFOs and why the govt is covering that up, and why they're here,etc... I'm sure his next project will be how the govt killed Elvis as well :p .

Want some more laughs? Check out Coup D'Etat in America: The CIA and the Assassination of John F. Kennedy
by Alan J. Weberman, Michael Canfield . One of the authors went from digging in Bob Dylan's garbage to being a self-proclaimed researcher and assassination "expert."

Carcharodon

12-03-2003, 05:54 PM

The most I know of it is from a video I watched in my history class last year.

The possibility of it being a conspiracy is very real. Do I think it was? I don't know. The fact that there are so many theories and all have some level of merrit just contributes to the confusion, and the lack of true evidence is staggering.

Mr Parker

12-03-2003, 06:30 PM

Originally posted by Atrax robustus
Thats a bit harsh dude.

You cant compare these theorys to the JFK one.
Just because a conspiracy theory for one thing could be way off, doesnt mean that they ALL have to be!

yeah no kidding,thats how most these immature posters here are when they cant counter an argument,they resort to name calling because they cant admit they are wrong and that their points have been countered.truely sad.

Tukiluka

12-03-2003, 06:39 PM

Originally posted by MJZ

And Tukiluka, the comparison was a sound one, as Jim Marrs, the author of Crossfire(book on which Stone's film was based), has a book called "Alien Agenda" in which he tells us everything about UFOs and why the govt is covering that up, and why they're here,etc... I'm sure his next project will be how the govt killed Elvis as well :p . Again, this is invalid reasoning. If Michael Jackson were to write a book on child care, you wouldn't discredit the whole idea of child care, would you?

Garrison had some wild notions, and I have done a bit of research into the movie, and found that it has HUGE, glaring flaws. I've also done a lot of reading on Momo Giancana, Johnny Roselli, Santo Traficante, and Carlos Marcello. The mob was WAY too cozy with higher ups in the government. Higher ups capable of assasinating the President. So to simply write the idea of a conspiracy off, because some nuts have written books on the subject is folly.

Tukiluka

12-03-2003, 06:41 PM

Originally posted by Madigan
jfk jr was so hot.. I killed him you know? I flew to Europe that same day. This was before 9/11, and I had never heard of two big plane crashes in one day. So I prayed to the Lord Jesus Christ that a major air catastrophe would happen, thus making my own flight safe. And Lo and behold, when we arrived safely in Paris, I learned JFK Jr. had taken an eternal swim.

Spidey_Freak

12-03-2003, 06:58 PM

I heard the movie was smokey in a strip club, plotless, and stupid?

Mr Parker

12-03-2003, 07:06 PM

Originally posted by slinger
JFK fired the head of the CIA, and who was one of the members on the Warren Commission? The former head of the CIA.

The movie is great, but it isn't 'the truth'. However it does bring up the question of the magic bullet theory. One shot was the fatal head shot, one shot hit the street curb and the other shot apparently went through JFK and Connolly and was in prestine condition after it was found in a hospital stretcher.

Re-inact that.

That is just one reason "WHY" OSWALD could not possibly ever have pulled it off is the magic bullet theory.No bullet can stop in midflight and turn and do all those crazy things the warren commission said it suppossedly did,that defies logic,and then to wind up in PRISTINE condition on a stretcher in the hospital? yeah right,give me a break.the zapruder film shows that Connolly has not yet been struck by a bullet like the warren commission said it struck him and JFK at the same time because he is still holding his stetson hat at the time JFK has been shot which is humanly impossible to do after getting struck by a bullet in the wrist.

and like you SAID,JFK fired the head of the CIA- ALLEN DULLES after the bay of pigs dissaster,and then this guy winds up on the warren commission and is the lead person in the investigation? talk about the fox guarding the henhouse.like I said,that one guy I was discussing this with is EXTREMELY naive.they never could prove oswald did it,yet people like that one guy,believe in books that are plain crap like CASE CLOSED which is full of so many lies endorcing the warren commission,its unbelievable.

MJZ

12-03-2003, 08:15 PM

Originally posted by Mr Parker
,yet people like that one guy,believe in books that are plain crap like CASE CLOSED which is full of so many lies endorcing the warren commission,its unbelievable.

Have you read the book, **** heel? What would those "lies" be? There's over 80 pages worth of notes and references in CASE CLOSED. Posner debunks every conspiracy theory out there and exposes the charlatans who push it. Science has proven the "magic bullet" to be what actually occured, too. However, the conspiracy kooks are still left grabbing at straws to support their claims.

The work of the AARRB didn't get a whole heck of a lot of press when they were finally dissolved. Why, you say? Oh, because even though they de-classified over 4 million pages of government documents, there was no evidence of any conspiracy, no smoking gun, no links that Oswald was employed by the government, etc... These were the supposedly "suppressed" files that weren't to be released till 2038, according to Mr. Stone. Well, his film created so much hooplah, that they did what he pleased, and he hasn't said much about it since. Why? Because it shows his claims to be full of hot air.

wobbly

12-03-2003, 10:03 PM

Originally posted by MJZ
It was proven. Look into all these conspiracy nuts who've written books, films, docs,etc... Someone posted this on another board and it bears repeating:

Look at it this way. No conspiracy theory can account for all the facts of the case, leaving the conspiracy theorist groping for some nebulous, indeterminate plot against the president.

All the facts of the case can, however, be explained by supposing Oswald acted alone.

When was it proven?
The closest thing I've seen to someone presenting a remotely convincing case to cover all the very real doubts over the physical evidence was a tv show I saw a couple of years back where they used a computer modelling program to find a scenario where the magic bullet could have done what the offical accounts always claimed. They then peformed a re-enactment based on the computer model's scenario in Deeley Plaza, using a limo and dummies and projected the computers proposed bullet trajectory lines from the dummies in the car up to the book depository window. All clever stuff and very impressive at first glance.
The problem with that is when you think about what they are doing it's just doing the kind of thing that debunkers usually aim at the conspiracy theorists; that they tinker with some facts and ignore others to support a desired outcome, rather than addressing what is actually known.
In this case they had to take a few liberties with the recorded facts regarding the angle of the entry wound to Kennedy's back so that the bullet could still exit out his throat and go on to hit Connolly, they also had to lean Kennedy forward and twist his body over to his side at an angle somewhat, a supposition not supported by the Zapruder footage or witness accounts at the time, and a little at odds with the notion of him wearing a back-brace that they introduced later to account for his head not being thrown forwards from a hit from behind (That his head was actually jerked backwards and his brain sent spraying backwards was ignored).
If I remember right they also had a marksman repeat the shots scoring 3 hits on a moving target in slightly less time. Key point there being he was a top marksman. Oswald was not.
I also recall they shot a bulllet through 2 cadavers or something similar to see what condition it would come out in, and though surprisingly intact it was not in the same pristine condition of the one found on the stretcher, and the fact the the bullet that hit Connolly shattered the bones in his wrist and would likely have suffered a good deal more damage was also not addressed.

All of which was done to suggest that a lone Gunman shooting from the Book Depository may have been possible, more food for thought than what would, or should be considered proof, and at no time did they present any evidence that could prove it was Oswald actually doing the shooting in any way.

So if there's been anything else since that has proved anything, rather than given us just another 'maybe', I'm afraid I've not seen it as yet.

I personally don't think Oswald acted alone in the shooting based on all the observations I've seen on the physical evidence from both sides over the years. If I see or read something that presents a convincing case otherwise, and does not have to ignore certain facts to reach their conclusion, then I'd happilly change that opinion.

A regards the quote you posted, either way both options are suppositions, and whichever you choose to beleive in, neither has conclusive proof one way or the other.

MJZ

12-03-2003, 10:20 PM

Ask yourself these questions. If there was some big govt conspiracy, why didn't anyone come out and blow the whistle? JFK was a beloved man and anyone with such first-hand knowledge would be hailed as a national hero.

If there was a big conspiracy, why didn't the Kennedy family use all their power and influence to uncover it? Surely they'd be interested in finding out the truth, and Bobby could've won the Presidential election right then and there. And again, you'd have the whole country behind you.

Lemme see if I can dig up that old Boston Globe article I posted awhile back.

MJZ

12-03-2003, 10:26 PM

From the Boston Globe:

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

Getting Closer to the Truth About the Death of JFK
Author: By Max Holland
Date: FRIDAY, September 18, 1998

Page: A27

Section: Op-Ed Page

For the federal government, and all Americans, it has been a long, torturous road from the 6th floor of 411 Elm St. in Dallas to the second floor of 600 E St. in Washington. But now these two red brick buildings are irrevocably connected in history as the federal government writes the last chapter of its part in the tragedy which, 35 years ago, struck dumb an entire nation.
Four-eleven Elm Street is more commonly known by the name of its former tenant, the Texas School Book Depository Company. The nondescript building at 600 E St. has no such claim on the national consciousness, though over time the work of one tenant there will do as much or more to shape history -- if reason ever prevails over our paranoia with respect to the assassination of President Kennedy.

For the past four years, five presidential appointees have labored almost anonymously, yet tirelessly, in Suite 208 to make public every significant artifact and document related to Nov. 22, 1963, and its aftermath. Within a matter of days the Assassination Records Review Board, as the appointees are collectively known, will publish its final report and shut down for good on Sept. 30.

Unlike every previous federal effort, however, the review board will not assert a single conclusion, in keeping with its mandate. It will report only what it managed to find. It's up to others to make sense out of the four-million-page collection, assembled at the cost of $8 million to the taxpayers.

While there are 10,000 stories in those documents, including many peripheral to the assassination, it is not premature to ask how, if at all, they affect our understanding of the emotional and political Grand Canyon that opened beneath our gaze in 1963.

Many of the documents have lain open for months already. Whether by accident or design, the review board has shed new light on the genuine Rosetta stone to that weekend in Dallas, namely, the response of Robert F. Kennedy to his brother's murder.

The version heretofore propagated was congenial to the Camelot metaphor, though independent of it. Roughly described, the preferred account has been that Robert Kennedy, attorney general at the time, was so profoundly devastated by the loss that he paid little heed to who was responsible for the assassination. ``Jack's gone and nothing is going to bring him back'' was RFK's refrain whenever he was intermittently pressed on his apparent uninterest in the Warren Commission's investigation.

The truth turns out to be considerably more complicated and interesting. Through the review board's efforts, you can piece together as never before the genuine, underlying reason for Robert Kennedy's uncharacteristic response. His pain was compounded by guilt. Because what occurred in Dallas was roughly what Robert Kennedy hoped and planned to have happen in Havana.

While a dozen documents retrieved and declassified help to build this case, the single most striking is an Oval Office memorandum of conversation dated Jan. 4, 1975, almost 12 years after Dallas. There are only three men in the room that Saturday morning as the discussion begins: Gerald Ford, president for a mere five months; Henry Kissinger, who held unprecedented power as Ford's secretary of state and national security adviser, and Brent Scowcroft, the note-taker (and later a national security adviser in his own right). The urgent, 9:40 a.m. meeting was called because the season of inquiry spawned by Watergate had not exhausted itself. But now the target was not a president but the sacrosanct Central Intelligence Agency, which was hanging in the fire after press reports of ``massive'' wrongdoing.

Kissinger is conveying to Ford the gist of his just-concluded breakfast conversation with former CIA Director Richard Helms, who had been summoned from Tehran to brief the White House about the alleged misdeeds. ``What is happening,'' Kissinger tells the president, ``is worse than in the days of McCarthy. You will end up with a CIA that does only reporting, and not operations.

``Helms said all these stories are just the tip of the iceberg. If they come out, blood will flow. For example, Robert Kennedy personally managed the operation on the assassination of Castro.''

The suggestion has already been made (this memo was opened in July) that the document does not really mean what it states in plain English, that it must be carefully put into context. Yet it is precisely the context that makes this document dispositive. Unless the White House could devise a mechanism, the CIA's days as an instrument of presidential power were numbered. But the president had to have all the facts to act effectively. It is inconceivable that Richard Helms told Henry Kissinger anything less than the full, hard truths as Helms knew them and as Kissinger needed to know them. As Allen Dulles once explained the need-to-know principle, ``I would tell the president of the United States anything . . . I am under his control. He is my boss.''

This truth about Robert Kennedy's bottomless melancholy, which never fully lifted during the reminder of his life, has at least three implications. For one, it helps explain his uninterest in the Warren Commission. Months before that federal panel presented its conclusion -- indeed, probably no later than Christmas 1963 -- he had reached the unavoidable conclusion, relying on his own crack investigators: Oswald, though enamored of Castro, had acted alone and Jack Ruby was a self-appointed vigilante. None of RFK's bete noires -- not Castro, Jimmy Hoffa or the Cosa Nostra -- had anything to do with the Dallas murders. Consequently the Warren Commission was not going to tell him anything he did not already know.

Conspiracy books usually treat John and Robert Kennedy as innocent babes who would not have thought about dirty tricks -- much less assassination plots -- against Castro. But the reality is very different. See:
An earlier article by Max Holland that focusses on Bobby Kennedy's attitude toward Castro and the assassination.
An article by ARRB member Anna Nelson on recent document releases, including one "smoking gun" memo that ties JFK to dirty tricks against Castro.

Indeed, in some respects the Warren Commission's investigation represented a threat, first to the Kennedy administration's image and then to RFK's own political viability. That is the only conceivable reason why Kennedy, when specifically asked by Earl Warren, did not share his knowledge of anti-Castro plotting with the Warren Commission. One is left with the bleak, sobering fact that Robert Kennedy and other high-ranking officials, no less than the CIA, realized that the national interest (as apart from the truth) would not be served by having the Warren Commission delve into and probably expose the plotting.

Rock-solid intelligence proved Castro had nothing to do with Oswald. Therefore, whatever the US government was trying to do was irrelevant to the issue of Oswald's culpability. The same need-to-know principle that compelled full disclosure in 1975 dictated in 1964 that the chief justice and Warren Commission staff be kept in the dark insofar as possible. And so they were.

Robert Kennedy's anguish and predicament turns out to be the metaphor for understanding the aftermath of the assassination. The entire, vast apparatus of the federal government had been put in motion to find out who had murdered a president. But once the facts pointed overwhelmingly in one and only one direction, the truth was portioned out to protect individuals and bureaucracies.

It's not the civic portrait (a government of laws, not men) depicted by high school textbooks. But it is the legacy left behind by the Assassination Records Review Board, and it ought to shift the entire axis of public understanding. Will Americans ever come to terms with this portrait of imperfection, and understand that for all the omissions, their government did not fail in its one supreme duty -- which was to tell the people who had killed their president.

Mr Parker

12-04-2003, 10:52 AM

Originally posted by Tukiluka
Again, this is invalid reasoning. If Michael Jackson were to write a book on child care, you wouldn't discredit the whole idea of child care, would you?

Garrison had some wild notions, and I have done a bit of research into the movie, and found that it has HUGE, glaring flaws. I've also done a lot of reading on Momo Giancana, Johnny Roselli, Santo Traficante, and Carlos Marcello. The mob was WAY too cozy with higher ups in the government. Higher ups capable of assasinating the President. So to simply write the idea of a conspiracy off, because some nuts have written books on the subject is folly.

exactly.

Mr Parker

12-04-2003, 11:01 AM

Originally posted by wobbly
When was it proven?
The closest thing I've seen to someone presenting a remotely convincing case to cover all the very real doubts over the physical evidence was a tv show I saw a couple of years back where they used a computer modelling program to find a scenario where the magic bullet could have done what the offical accounts always claimed. They then peformed a re-enactment based on the computer model's scenario in Deeley Plaza, using a limo and dummies and projected the computers proposed bullet trajectory lines from the dummies in the car up to the book depository window. All clever stuff and very impressive at first glance.
The problem with that is when you think about what they are doing it's just doing the kind of thing that debunkers usually aim at the conspiracy theorists; that they tinker with some facts and ignore others to support a desired outcome, rather than addressing what is actually known.
In this case they had to take a few liberties with the recorded facts regarding the angle of the entry wound to Kennedy's back so that the bullet could still exit out his throat and go on to hit Connolly, they also had to lean Kennedy forward and twist his body over to his side at an angle somewhat, a supposition not supported by the Zapruder footage or witness accounts at the time, and a little at odds with the notion of him wearing a back-brace that they introduced later to account for his head not being thrown forwards from a hit from behind (That his head was actually jerked backwards and his brain sent spraying backwards was ignored).
If I remember right they also had a marksman repeat the shots scoring 3 hits on a moving target in slightly less time. Key point there being he was a top marksman. Oswald was not.
I also recall they shot a bulllet through 2 cadavers or something similar to see what condition it would come out in, and though surprisingly intact it was not in the same pristine condition of the one found on the stretcher, and the fact the the bullet that hit Connolly shattered the bones in his wrist and would likely have suffered a good deal more damage was also not addressed.

All of which was done to suggest that a lone Gunman shooting from the Book Depository may have been possible, more food for thought than what would, or should be considered proof, and at no time did they present any evidence that could prove it was Oswald actually doing the shooting in any way.

So if there's been anything else since that has proved anything, rather than given us just another 'maybe', I'm afraid I've not seen it as yet.

I personally don't think Oswald acted alone in the shooting based on all the observations I've seen on the physical evidence from both sides over the years. If I see or read something that presents a convincing case otherwise, and does not have to ignore certain facts to reach their conclusion, then I'd happilly change that opinion.

A regards the quote you posted, either way both options are suppositions, and whichever you choose to beleive in, neither has conclusive proof one way or the other.

Thats what the main stream media always does to try and proove their wild notion that oswald did it.they always go to computers instead of showing actual evidence.thats EXACTLY what they do when they use those computers to stimulate it all,they tinker with the facts and distort everything and ignore the facts that prove conspiracy.Like you said,there has never been any evidence shown that proved oswald did it.and do you not understand english or something MJZ? I told you I am done with you because you just engage in name calling when your points are countered and you got no argument.:rolleyes:

Dr Jones

12-04-2003, 11:04 AM

LBJ, the mob, the Soviets and Kermit the Frog were all conspirators.

Atrax robustus

12-04-2003, 11:05 AM

Originally posted by Dr Jones
LBJ, the mob, the Soviets and Kermit the Frog were all conspirators.
DAMN THAT KERMIT! :mad:

I KNEW IT!!!!!!!!! :mad: :mad: :mad:

http://www.kleine-buehne-wf.de/kermit.jpg

;) :p

Dr Jones

12-04-2003, 11:19 AM

Most people have no idea what an evil SOB he is in real life.

MJZ

12-04-2003, 01:43 PM

Originally posted by Mr Parker
Thats what the main stream media always does to try and proove their wild notion that oswald did it.they always go to computers instead of showing actual evidence.thats EXACTLY what they do when they use those computers to stimulate it all,they tinker with the facts and distort everything and ignore the facts that prove conspiracy.Like you said,there has never been any evidence shown that proved oswald did it.and do you not understand english or something MJZ? I told you I am done with you because you just engage in name calling when your points are countered and you got no argument.:rolleyes:

Why don't you read and comment on the article I posted. I guess you're choosing to ignore it because it refutes all your bull**** claims. Typical of conspiracy nutjobs.

wobbly

12-04-2003, 03:23 PM

MJz, interesting article and asking why no-one has ever blown the whistle and why Robert Kennedy didn't pursue a possible conspiracy is a good and valid point.
But just because those answers are not known and can only be speculated on one way or another does not constitute proof against a conspiracy, rather it just adds to the intrigue.
That's mainly why I generally avoid discussing the nature or possible details of any conspiracy; For every plausible theory put forward there will be someone who can put valid arguments against it, with neither side having proof positive either way. So as regards the who, the what, the where and the why of a conspiracy, none of us here knows and we probably never will.

But what can be discussed with confidence is the evidence at hand, and that's what I base my own opinion on.
In one the Sherlock Holmes novels Arther Conan Doyle had Holmes say this famous line (or something very much like it):
"Once you have eliminated the impossible whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth."
Simple enough statement and very apt with the JFK assasination.

Basically, all the tangible evidence available shows it was impossible for Oswald to have been a lone assassin.
The Zapruder footage discounts any of the more recent speculations obtained through creative computer modelling which has to ignore that film to reach a conclusion that allows for the magic bullet, and subsequently ignore the obvious direction from which the fatal shot was fired: Beginning an argument of proof by ignoring the most tangible evidence available is in no way convincing to any objective analysis.

So to account for the physical evidence of the Zapruder footage, and the recorded injuries to both Kennedy and Connolly, there had to have been a fourth shot. And again based on that evidence, that fourth shot came from the front, fatally blowing a significant chunk of Kennedy's brain out of the back of his head.

So what we are left with then, having eliminated the impossible, is a possible scenerio of a second shooter and a fourth shot. Unlike Oswald acting alone, this scenario does fit the evidence. If by definition that means there was a conspiracy, then that's what there was, no matter how improbable (or more likely depending on your pov) that may seem in the light of any events that followed.

Everything else that comes after regarding the nature of said conspiracy is mostly all speculation, either in trying to prove or disprove it, and unless someone back then was insane enough to really leave incriminating evidence lying around in an archive somewhere, then that's all it will remain.

kang

12-04-2003, 03:39 PM

Key point there being he was a top marksman. Oswald was not.
Where did you hear this?

wobbly

12-04-2003, 03:45 PM

Originally posted by kang
Where did you hear this?

This is taken from another site discussing Oswald's alleged rifle skills:

"Even after weeks of practice and intensive training, Oswald barely managed to qualify at the level of "Sharpshooter," the middle of three rifle qualification levels in the Marines. He obtained a score of 212, two points above the minimum for the "Sharpshooter" level. In other words, even after extensive training and practice, and even though he was firing at stationary targets with a semi-automatic rifle and had plenty of time to shoot (even during the so-called "rapid-fire" phase), Oswald narrowly missed scoring at the lowest possible qualification level.

The next time Oswald fired for record in the Marines, he barely managed to qualify at all, obtaining a score of 191, which was one point above the minimum needed for the lowest qualification level, "Marksman." To put it another way, he came within two points of failing to qualify."

The full article can be read here:

http://ourworld-top.cs.com/mikegriffith1/id87.htm

MJZ

12-04-2003, 04:04 PM

"I can't help it, there you go again."

From Case Closed :

Sgt. James Zahm, the NCO in charge of the marksmanship training unit, said, "In the Marine Corps he is a good shot, slightly above average... and as compared to the average male...throughout the United States, he is an excellent shot."

It continues, It "was an easy shot for a man with the equipment he had and his ability," said Sgt. Zahm. Major Eugene Anderson, of the marksmanship branch, said the assassination shots "were not particularly difficult" and that, based on his Marine record, "Oswald had full capabilites to make this shot."

Do you realize how absurd the information is you just quoted? They're trying to put a negative spin on things, when in actuality, OSWALD WAS A QUALIFIED MARINE-MARKSMAN AND SHARPSHOOTER, and they admitted as such.

I never see anyone mention the PBS Frontline special from 1993, which delved into Oswald and the investigation of JFK's murder. In one of the segments, they took an amateur film shot by people in Dealey Plaza, which included footage of the School Book Depository, just before the assassination. Scientists subjected it to a bunch of tests and enhancements, and guess what they found? Movement in the 6th floor window, indicating the presence of a person.

kang

12-04-2003, 04:07 PM

Originally posted by wobbly
This is taken from another site discussing Oswald's alleged rifle skills:

"Even after weeks of practice and intensive training, Oswald barely managed to qualify at the level of "Sharpshooter," the middle of three rifle qualification levels in the Marines. He obtained a score of 212, two points above the minimum for the "Sharpshooter" level. In other words, even after extensive training and practice, and even though he was firing at stationary targets with a semi-automatic rifle and had plenty of time to shoot (even during the so-called "rapid-fire" phase), Oswald narrowly missed scoring at the lowest possible qualification level.

The next time Oswald fired for record in the Marines, he barely managed to qualify at all, obtaining a score of 191, which was one point above the minimum needed for the lowest qualification level, "Marksman." To put it another way, he came within two points of failing to qualify."

The full article can be read here:

http://ourworld-top.cs.com/mikegriffith1/id87.htm

It's just that the BBC recently had an evening to mark the assination, in which they analysed the events surrounding the attack. They found that Oswald was infact a very compitent marksman and that the car containing Kennedy was well within the limits of his skill.
In short, what they found contradicts what that website states.

Max Shrek

12-04-2003, 04:09 PM

I STILL say it was Steven Tyler from Aerosmith.:o

MJZ

12-04-2003, 04:10 PM

Originally posted by kang
It's just that the BBC recently had an evening to mark the assination, in which they analysed the events surrounding the attack. They found that Oswald was infact a very compitent marksman and that the car containing Kennedy was well within the limits of his skill.
In short, what they found contradicts what that website states.

Indeed, and all that website does is try to spin the truth about Oswald's shooting ability. It doesn't matter that he "only scored two points above the test." Fact is, that he was a MARINE-QUALIFIED MARKSMAN AND SHARPSHOOTER. If he was such a poor shot, he would've failed dismally wouldn't he?

MJZ

12-04-2003, 04:14 PM

Oh, and another thing re: Oswald's "fellow Marines," specifically Delgado, who's often cited by critics. What they fail to mention was that Delgado wasn't posted with Oswald when Lee qualified as a sharpshooter.

Mr Parker

12-04-2003, 04:53 PM

Originally posted by MJZ
I take it you've read all 26 volumes of the Warren Report then? Or is your knowledge limited to Stone's film and Jim Marrs' Crossfire?

And Tukiluka, the comparison was a sound one, as Jim Marrs, the author of Crossfire(book on which Stone's film was based), has a book called "Alien Agenda" in which he tells us everything about UFOs and why the govt is covering that up, and why they're here,etc... I'm sure his next project will be how the govt killed Elvis as well :p .

Want some more laughs? Check out Coup D'Etat in America: The CIA and the Assassination of John F. Kennedy
by Alan J. Weberman, Michael Canfield . One of the authors went from digging in Bob Dylan's garbage to being a self-proclaimed researcher and assassination "expert."

Okay this topic is a LOT more important to me than how hollywood screwed up the spiderman movie with organic webshooters so I'll address you even though you are incredibly immature and have to resort to name calling when you are losing an argument.if this was about the movie,I would not bother with you,but like I said,this topic is a LOT more important so go ahead and make yourself look like the immature idiot you are with your name calling if thats what you insist on doing,I wont play your game though and I'll just ignore it.

No I havent read all the 26 volumes of the warren commission report but I have read the 850 page book of it and that american history teacher I am friends with,he HAS read all 26 volumes and he can shread those volumes to pieces because it is so full of lies its unreal,those 26 volumes are a laugh and alan weberman and canfields book is more closer to the trith than the warren report.I have not read that book of MARRS alien agenda because I really dont have an interest in UFO'S,but I would not be too surprised if its true because he obviously has done a great deal of research on CROSSFIRE and has facts to back up his claims.no all I need for more laughs is the warren report and Posners book.:D

wobbly

12-04-2003, 04:56 PM

Originally posted by kang
It's just that the BBC recently had an evening to mark the assination, in which they analysed the events surrounding the attack. They found that Oswald was infact a very compitent marksman and that the car containing Kennedy was well within the limits of his skill.
In short, what they found contradicts what that website states.

Never saw that one so I can't comment on their conclusions. Did they get a marksman of similar skill to repeat the feat with the same type of rifle under similar conditions (and give them only one go at it)?

Be interested in seeing that if they did.

MJZ

12-04-2003, 04:56 PM

That's an impressive rebuttal. "NO, I didn't read it, but someone I know did and according to him(who is obviously an authority on the matter), it's all hogwash." Right.

Learn some ****ing grammar skills next time, it's a pain in the ass trying to decipher all that babble.

Mr Parker

12-04-2003, 04:57 PM

Originally posted by MJZ
Ask yourself these questions. If there was some big govt conspiracy, why didn't anyone come out and blow the whistle? JFK was a beloved man and anyone with such first-hand knowledge would be hailed as a national hero.

If there was a big conspiracy, why didn't the Kennedy family use all their power and influence to uncover it? Surely they'd be interested in finding out the truth, and Bobby could've won the Presidential election right then and there. And again, you'd have the whole country behind you.

Lemme see if I can dig up that old Boston Globe article I posted awhile back.

People who did come out and talk about seeing a 2nd gunmen wound up as mysterious dead bodys.Rfk was going to try and win the presidency so he could open up the case again,thats why the CIA got rid of him to,to make sure he didnt open it up.they took care of that little problem.:rolleyes:

MJZ

12-04-2003, 04:58 PM

Originally posted by wobbly
Never saw that one so I can't comment on their conclusions. Did they get a marksman of similar skill to repeat the feat with the same type of rifle under similar conditions (and give them only one go at it)?

Be interested in seeing that if they did.

As I understand it, on the Peter Jennings special, they had an 89 year-old man repeat the feat in the alloted time(same rifle and everything), and made the obvious note that a younger man would be able to do it much better.

MJZ

12-04-2003, 05:01 PM

Originally posted by Mr Parker
People who did come out and talk about seeing a 2nd gunmen wound up as mysterious dead bodys.Rfk was going to try and win the presidency so he could open up the case again,thats why the CIA got rid of him to,to make sure he didnt open it up.they took care of that little problem.:rolleyes:

Notice how this guy has no sources for anything he says. Re: "mysterious deaths," Posner cites EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THEM AND THE CAUSE OF DEATH IN THE BACK OF HIS BOOK. Skipped over that, did we?

Mr Parker

12-04-2003, 05:15 PM

Originally posted by MJZ
From the Boston Globe:

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

Getting Closer to the Truth About the Death of JFK
Author: By Max Holland
Date: FRIDAY, September 18, 1998

Page: A27

Section: Op-Ed Page

For the federal government, and all Americans, it has been a long, torturous road from the 6th floor of 411 Elm St. in Dallas to the second floor of 600 E St. in Washington. But now these two red brick buildings are irrevocably connected in history as the federal government writes the last chapter of its part in the tragedy which, 35 years ago, struck dumb an entire nation.
Four-eleven Elm Street is more commonly known by the name of its former tenant, the Texas School Book Depository Company. The nondescript building at 600 E St. has no such claim on the national consciousness, though over time the work of one tenant there will do as much or more to shape history -- if reason ever prevails over our paranoia with respect to the assassination of President Kennedy.

For the past four years, five presidential appointees have labored almost anonymously, yet tirelessly, in Suite 208 to make public every significant artifact and document related to Nov. 22, 1963, and its aftermath. Within a matter of days the Assassination Records Review Board, as the appointees are collectively known, will publish its final report and shut down for good on Sept. 30.

Unlike every previous federal effort, however, the review board will not assert a single conclusion, in keeping with its mandate. It will report only what it managed to find. It's up to others to make sense out of the four-million-page collection, assembled at the cost of $8 million to the taxpayers.

While there are 10,000 stories in those documents, including many peripheral to the assassination, it is not premature to ask how, if at all, they affect our understanding of the emotional and political Grand Canyon that opened beneath our gaze in 1963.

Many of the documents have lain open for months already. Whether by accident or design, the review board has shed new light on the genuine Rosetta stone to that weekend in Dallas, namely, the response of Robert F. Kennedy to his brother's murder.

The version heretofore propagated was congenial to the Camelot metaphor, though independent of it. Roughly described, the preferred account has been that Robert Kennedy, attorney general at the time, was so profoundly devastated by the loss that he paid little heed to who was responsible for the assassination. ``Jack's gone and nothing is going to bring him back'' was RFK's refrain whenever he was intermittently pressed on his apparent uninterest in the Warren Commission's investigation.

The truth turns out to be considerably more complicated and interesting. Through the review board's efforts, you can piece together as never before the genuine, underlying reason for Robert Kennedy's uncharacteristic response. His pain was compounded by guilt. Because what occurred in Dallas was roughly what Robert Kennedy hoped and planned to have happen in Havana.

While a dozen documents retrieved and declassified help to build this case, the single most striking is an Oval Office memorandum of conversation dated Jan. 4, 1975, almost 12 years after Dallas. There are only three men in the room that Saturday morning as the discussion begins: Gerald Ford, president for a mere five months; Henry Kissinger, who held unprecedented power as Ford's secretary of state and national security adviser, and Brent Scowcroft, the note-taker (and later a national security adviser in his own right). The urgent, 9:40 a.m. meeting was called because the season of inquiry spawned by Watergate had not exhausted itself. But now the target was not a president but the sacrosanct Central Intelligence Agency, which was hanging in the fire after press reports of ``massive'' wrongdoing.

Kissinger is conveying to Ford the gist of his just-concluded breakfast conversation with former CIA Director Richard Helms, who had been summoned from Tehran to brief the White House about the alleged misdeeds. ``What is happening,'' Kissinger tells the president, ``is worse than in the days of McCarthy. You will end up with a CIA that does only reporting, and not operations.

``Helms said all these stories are just the tip of the iceberg. If they come out, blood will flow. For example, Robert Kennedy personally managed the operation on the assassination of Castro.''

The suggestion has already been made (this memo was opened in July) that the document does not really mean what it states in plain English, that it must be carefully put into context. Yet it is precisely the context that makes this document dispositive. Unless the White House could devise a mechanism, the CIA's days as an instrument of presidential power were numbered. But the president had to have all the facts to act effectively. It is inconceivable that Richard Helms told Henry Kissinger anything less than the full, hard truths as Helms knew them and as Kissinger needed to know them. As Allen Dulles once explained the need-to-know principle, ``I would tell the president of the United States anything . . . I am under his control. He is my boss.''

This truth about Robert Kennedy's bottomless melancholy, which never fully lifted during the reminder of his life, has at least three implications. For one, it helps explain his uninterest in the Warren Commission. Months before that federal panel presented its conclusion -- indeed, probably no later than Christmas 1963 -- he had reached the unavoidable conclusion, relying on his own crack investigators: Oswald, though enamored of Castro, had acted alone and Jack Ruby was a self-appointed vigilante. None of RFK's bete noires -- not Castro, Jimmy Hoffa or the Cosa Nostra -- had anything to do with the Dallas murders. Consequently the Warren Commission was not going to tell him anything he did not already know.

Conspiracy books usually treat John and Robert Kennedy as innocent babes who would not have thought about dirty tricks -- much less assassination plots -- against Castro. But the reality is very different. See:
An earlier article by Max Holland that focusses on Bobby Kennedy's attitude toward Castro and the assassination.
An article by ARRB member Anna Nelson on recent document releases, including one "smoking gun" memo that ties JFK to dirty tricks against Castro.

Indeed, in some respects the Warren Commission's investigation represented a threat, first to the Kennedy administration's image and then to RFK's own political viability. That is the only conceivable reason why Kennedy, when specifically asked by Earl Warren, did not share his knowledge of anti-Castro plotting with the Warren Commission. One is left with the bleak, sobering fact that Robert Kennedy and other high-ranking officials, no less than the CIA, realized that the national interest (as apart from the truth) would not be served by having the Warren Commission delve into and probably expose the plotting.

Rock-solid intelligence proved Castro had nothing to do with Oswald. Therefore, whatever the US government was trying to do was irrelevant to the issue of Oswald's culpability. The same need-to-know principle that compelled full disclosure in 1975 dictated in 1964 that the chief justice and Warren Commission staff be kept in the dark insofar as possible. And so they were.

Robert Kennedy's anguish and predicament turns out to be the metaphor for understanding the aftermath of the assassination. The entire, vast apparatus of the federal government had been put in motion to find out who had murdered a president. But once the facts pointed overwhelmingly in one and only one direction, the truth was portioned out to protect individuals and bureaucracies.

It's not the civic portrait (a government of laws, not men) depicted by high school textbooks. But it is the legacy left behind by the Assassination Records Review Board, and it ought to shift the entire axis of public understanding. Will Americans ever come to terms with this portrait of imperfection, and understand that for all the omissions, their government did not fail in its one supreme duty -- which was to tell the people who had killed their president.

Yes,I already knew about RK AND JFK'S ASSASSINATION plans for Castro,I never said they werent involved in dirty tricks or that they were angels or great men,thats why I really dont feel too bad about their deaths,but that doesnt change the fact there was no proof oswald did it. Also,none of that proves the warren commission was able to prove that oswald did it though,and once again you are wrong because the governement DID fail BIG TIME in its duty to tell people the truth on who had killed kennedy,you keep ignoring the truth that they never could prove that Oswald did it.:rolleyes:

Atrax robustus

12-04-2003, 05:24 PM

I still dont know anything about this.
But I will definitely start studying it soon, and with an open mind.

A conspiracy is definitely possible.
I dont know about over the water. But here in Britian if a high profile case is opened and they (being the police) dont know who it was who commited the murder, they will set someone up.
Always looks better if the cops "catch" someone. Makes it look like theyre doing their job. It would look bad to admit that no-one knew who the culprit was.

I beleve it happened with a good few high profile cases over the years here. Jill Dando (sp?) being one of the most obvious. (IMO)
They just blamed the local vilage idiot.

MJZ

12-04-2003, 05:26 PM

Originally posted by Mr Parker
Yes,I already knew about RK AND JFK'S ASSASSINATION plans for Castro,I never said they werent involved in dirty tricks or that they were angels or great men,thats why I really dont feel too bad about their deaths,but that doesnt change the fact there was no proof oswald did it. Also,none of that proves the warren commission was able to prove that oswald did it though,and once again you are wrong because the governement DID fail BIG TIME in its duty to tell people the truth on who had killed kennedy,you keep ignoring the truth that they never could prove that Oswald did it.:rolleyes:

You're such a dolt. You're the one being ignorant. All of this is a waste of time, as it's plain to see that you're not the brightest crayon in the box.

Mr Parker

12-04-2003, 05:27 PM

Originally posted by MJZ
Notice how this guy has no sources for anything he says. Re: "mysterious deaths," Posner cites EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THEM AND THE CAUSE OF DEATH IN THE BACK OF HIS BOOK. Skipped over that, did we?

Yes Posner cites those but you also forget to mention that some alamac concluded that all those people dying the way they did within that time was something like a million to one or something like that.many of them were very mysterious.I also have spoken to witnesses over the years Beverly Oliver and Jean Hill to mention a couple,who have spoken of being threatened by authoritys and Ed Hoffman the deaf mute I know was in tears when he saw Posners book because he said everything he printed was a lie about him that none of the stuff posner said about him or happened was true.Marina Oswald also in 1993 was on with Tom Browkaw saying that Posner misquoted her in everything she said.Posner is the biggest liar who distorts things and you ignorantly fell for it,how sad.

Mr Parker

12-04-2003, 05:41 PM

Originally posted by MJZ
"I can't help it, there you go again."

From Case Closed :

Sgt. James Zahm, the NCO in charge of the marksmanship training unit, said, "In the Marine Corps he is a good shot, slightly above average... and as compared to the average male...throughout the United States, he is an excellent shot."

It continues, It "was an easy shot for a man with the equipment he had and his ability," said Sgt. Zahm. Major Eugene Anderson, of the marksmanship branch, said the assassination shots "were not particularly difficult" and that, based on his Marine record, "Oswald had full capabilites to make this shot."

Do you realize how absurd the information is you just quoted? They're trying to put a negative spin on things, when in actuality, OSWALD WAS A QUALIFIED MARINE-MARKSMAN AND SHARPSHOOTER, and they admitted as such.

I never see anyone mention the PBS Frontline special from 1993, which delved into Oswald and the investigation of JFK's murder. In one of the segments, they took an amateur film shot by people in Dealey Plaza, which included footage of the School Book Depository, just before the assassination. Scientists subjected it to a bunch of tests and enhancements, and guess what they found? Movement in the 6th floor window, indicating the presence of a person.

err No,there was never any proof that oswald was a qualified marine marksman and sharpshooter..Did it ever occur to you that Sgt could have been bribed to say that? You also forget to mention they found movement of what looked like two individuals in the photos and that there is a photo taken by a bystander down there within seconds after the shooting,and the photo shows nobody in that window.you also forget to mention that in that 1993 frontline video they showed on PBS that they forgot to conviently mention that one of the photos showed Oswald and Ferrie together.what he said is not absurd,whats absurd is that you fell for all those lies of Posners.you also fail to mention that the rifle they found had a badly misalined scope and was pure junk.

I SEE SPIDEY

12-04-2003, 05:41 PM

i hate mr. parker:)

Mr Parker

12-04-2003, 05:50 PM

Originally posted by MJZ
That's an impressive rebuttal. "NO, I didn't read it, but someone I know did and according to him(who is obviously an authority on the matter), it's all hogwash." Right.

Learn some ****ing grammar skills next time, it's a pain in the ass trying to decipher all that babble.
no your full of hogwash and have to get into insults when your losing the argument.

Mr Parker

12-04-2003, 05:53 PM

Originally posted by MJZ
As I understand it, on the Peter Jennings special, they had an 89 year-old man repeat the feat in the alloted time(same rifle and everything), and made the obvious note that a younger man would be able to do it much better.
your hopeless to be reasoned with if you believe all the Peter jennings bullcrap.

Mr Parker

12-04-2003, 05:55 PM

Originally posted by MJZ
You're such a dolt. You're the one being ignorant. All of this is a waste of time, as it's plain to see that you're not the brightest crayon in the box.

For once I agree with you,this is a waste of time,you got no proof whatsoever that proves oswald did it and have to resort to name calling when losing the argument.

wobbly

12-04-2003, 06:02 PM

Originally posted by MJZ
"I can't help it, there you go again."

From Case Closed :

Sgt. James Zahm, the NCO in charge of the marksmanship training unit, said, "In the Marine Corps he is a good shot, slightly above average... and as compared to the average male...throughout the United States, he is an excellent shot."

It continues, It "was an easy shot for a man with the equipment he had and his ability," said Sgt. Zahm. Major Eugene Anderson, of the marksmanship branch, said the assassination shots "were not particularly difficult" and that, based on his Marine record, "Oswald had full capabilites to make this shot."

Do you realize how absurd the information is you just quoted? They're trying to put a negative spin on things, when in actuality, OSWALD WAS A QUALIFIED MARINE-MARKSMAN AND SHARPSHOOTER, and they admitted as such.

I never see anyone mention the PBS Frontline special from 1993, which delved into Oswald and the investigation of JFK's murder. In one of the segments, they took an amateur film shot by people in Dealey Plaza, which included footage of the School Book Depository, just before the assassination. Scientists subjected it to a bunch of tests and enhancements, and guess what they found? Movement in the 6th floor window, indicating the presence of a person.

MJZ, 'spin' as you put it, is used by both sides of the fence to suit their arguments and always has been. I could argue you spun your inteperatation of that info to make Oswald sound like a great shot after all. Fact is, in all the accounts from experts that I've seen or read on the matter over the years, the majority felt Oswald was not up to the task, often citing those marine records as a basis for that reasoning, and none of the few who did claim he could make the shot had anything to back up their assertion.

But if a genuine and accurate re-enactment has indeed been done that supports the possibility for Oswald being able to perform the shot (I haven't seen one as yet, and this 'Jennings' special hasn't been shown yet in the Uk afaik) and it's been verified by independent experts, then I've got no problems at all conceding that point.
Though until I do see that for myslef I'm still inclined to side with those feel it was beyond him.

And all this of course has sidetracked from and does nothing to address my earlier post that an objective analysis of the physical evidence (film footage, wounds on kennedy and Connolly) discounts the possibility of a lone gunman anyway.

Whether Oswald had the abililty to hit the target or not does not detract from the fact that physical evidence proves the lone gunman theory is impossible.

kang

12-04-2003, 06:06 PM

And all this of course has sidetracked from and does nothing to address my earlier post that an objective analysis of the physical evidence (film footage, wounds on kennedy and Connolly) discounts the possibility of a lone gunman anyway.

Whether Oswald had the abililty to hit the target or not does not detract from the fact that physical evidence proves the lone gunman theory is impossible.

Sorry, what makes the "lone gunman theory" impossible?

Mr Parker

12-04-2003, 06:11 PM

Originally posted by kang
Sorry, what makes the "lone gunman theory" impossible?
Well the bullet would have to stop in mid air and change paths in mid flight and do all these crazy scenarios that are plain absurd,hence thats why its called the magic bullet.:)

kang

12-04-2003, 06:13 PM

Originally posted by Mr Parker
Well the bullet would have to stop in mid air and change paths in mid flight and do all these crazy scenarios that are plain absurd,hence thats why its called the magic bullet.:)

I was asking Wobbly.

Mr Parker

12-04-2003, 06:20 PM

Originally posted by wobbly
MJZ, 'spin' as you put it, is used by both sides of the fence to suit their arguments and always has been. I could argue you spun your inteperatation of that info to make Oswald sound like a great shot after all. Fact is, in all the accounts from experts that I've seen or read on the matter over the years, the majority felt Oswald was not up to the task, often citing those marine records as a basis for that reasoning, and none of the few who did claim he could make the shot had anything to back up their assertion.

But if a genuine and accurate re-enactment has indeed been done that supports the possibility for Oswald being able to perform the shot (I haven't seen one as yet, and this 'Jennings' special hasn't been shown yet in the Uk afaik) and it's been verified by independent experts, then I've got no problems at all conceding that point.
Though until I do see that for myslef I'm still inclined to side with those feel it was beyond him.

And all this of course has sidetracked from and does nothing to address my earlier post that an objective analysis of the physical evidence (film footage, wounds on kennedy and Connolly) discounts the possibility of a lone gunman anyway.

Whether Oswald had the abililty to hit the target or not does not detract from the fact that physical evidence proves the lone gunman theory is impossible.

Exactly.The majority of the experts didnt feel he was up to the task to pull it off based on his marine records.and no,the Peter Jennings re-enactment wasnt at all accurate.Like you said,just like the 1993 PBS frontline special used computer imagery to try and proove it instead of using actual photographs,this special did the same exact thing,so no, an accurate re-enactment wasnt done.Like you said,the physical evidence and the film footage discounts the lone gunman theory.

Like you said,physical evidence proves the lone gunman theory is impossible.

kang

12-04-2003, 06:25 PM

Originally posted by Mr Parker
Exactly.The majority of the experts didnt feel he was up to the task to pull it off based on his marine records.and no,the Peter Jennings re-enactment didnt wasnt at all accurate.Like you said,just like the 1993 PBS frontline special used computer imagery to try and proove it instead of using actual photographs,this special did the same exact thing,so no an accurate re-enactment wasnt done.Like you said,the physical evidence and the film footage discounts the lone gunman theory.

Like you said,physical evidence proves the lone gunman theory is impossible.
The BBC version used a computer model based entirely on film and photographic evidence. Using this they created a scale model of the area, car, president and passengers. The models moved exactly as they did on film, when playing out the scenario it showed that a bullet could be fired from the 6th floor through the 2 people in the car.

Mr Parker

12-04-2003, 06:42 PM

Originally posted by kang
The BBC version used a computer model based entirely on film and photographic evidence. Using this they created a scale model of the area, car, president and passengers. The models moved exactly as they did on film, when playing out the scenario it showed that a bullet could be fired from the 6th floor through the 2 people in the car.

Yeah but the zapruder film shows that Connolly is still holding on to his stetson hat when the bullet strikes Kennedy in the back which is imposible to do since the wrist was shattered by the same bullet at the same time.Like I mentioned earlier,there have been witnesses I have spoken to over the years that said they saw a 2nd gunman behind the knoll which the warren commission totally ignored the testimony of.

wobbly

12-04-2003, 06:58 PM

Originally posted by kang
Sorry, what makes the "lone gunman theory" impossible?

Physical evidence from the assasination; the records detailing the wounds to Kennedy and Governer Connolly, and the Zapruder film footage that captured both hits on JFK.

The records show that the 'magic bullet' (Officially recorded as the second shot, the first having missed the car completely) entered kennedy's back at a downward angle, turned upwards to exit via his throat, then down again to hit connolly, finally stopping with hitting and shattering the bones in Connolly's wrist. This bullet, having allegedly blasted its way through the bone and cartillidge of 2 bodies, was later found in near perfect condition.

For the computer models to make this possible in the TV show I saw a while back, they had to take liberties with accepted facts and play with angles, positions etc, to make it all work, even when the positions they came up with were at odds with what could be seen on the film. In effect they fiddled with the data to find a desired outcome, rather than let the data speak for itself. Such evidence acquired in such manner would never stand up in a reputable court of law.

But even when you get a computer to find a way for the bullet to work, as Mr Parker has stated, the Zapruder film shows that after JFK was hit with this remarkable bullet, Connolly was still holding his Stetson hat in his right hand, even though the official account states a bullet had just passed through his shoulder and shattered the wrist bones of that hand.

But lastly and what serves as proof against a lone gunman on its own to me, is the final and fatal shot. To me there's no doubt it clearly shows JFK's head jerk backwards, with a spray of blood and brain matter blown backwards. Its physically impossible for that to happen from a shot from behind no matter what some 'scientist' the latest show might dig up to try and convince anyone otherwise.
All accepted theory and practice points soley to a shot from the front to account for what was captured in that moment, that means there was a second shooter, that means the lone gunman theory is impossible.

Johnichi Chiba

12-04-2003, 07:06 PM

I believe there is a conspiracy because of the large amount of witnesses that were discredited by the Warren Commission, including Abraham(sp?) Zapruder.

Magneto29

12-04-2003, 07:35 PM

"The Men Who Kiled Kennedy" specials on the History Channel were very good. One of them had a guy who did this whole investigation about some french guy who was asked to kill Kennedy but declined. He ended up telling about the three gun-man, one behind the fence. He was also proven by another guy, who paided the gunman by exchanging their drugs, ( the payment for the killing) into cash.

Mr Parker

12-04-2003, 07:46 PM

Originally posted by Super_Surfer
I believe there is a conspiracy because of the large amount of witnesses that were discredited by the Warren Commission, including Abraham(sp?) Zapruder.

yeah they completely ignored witnesses who said they saw a shooter behind the picket fence,all the witnesses who had information that did not fit their version were all ignored.

Mr Parker

12-04-2003, 07:46 PM

Originally posted by Magneto29
"The Men Who Kiled Kennedy" specials on the History Channel were very good. One of them had a guy who did this whole investigation about some french guy who was asked to kill Kennedy but declined. He ended up telling about the three gun-man, one behind the fence. He was also proven by another guy, who paided the gunman by exchanging their drugs, ( the payment for the killing) into cash.

thats a very good documentary series.

Maurice

06-27-2006, 08:46 PM

Sorry, what makes the "lone gunman theory" impossible?

The lone gunman theory is impossible because it relies on the "magic bullet". This single shot could not have caused all the injuries to JFK and Gov. Connally that the Warren Commission says it did. Commission Exhibit 399 (the magic bullet) is not missing enough material to have passed through JFK and Connally. Till the day he died (June 15th 1993), John Connally had more bullet fragments left in his wrist and leg than were missing from CE 399. This is also not counting the fragments that were removed from Connally at Parkland Hospital on November 22nd 1963. The fragments left in Connally alone would have weighed more than what is missing from CE 399. How could a bullet shed more grains of metal from itself than what is missing from it? Simple, it can't. CE 399 (the magic bullet) wasn't even removed from Connally. It was found on some random gurney at Parkland. CE 399 is not missing enough grains of metal to have passed through JFK and Connally. If there is no magic bullet, The Warren Commission's case crumbles.

JLBats

06-27-2006, 08:49 PM

The lone gunman theory is impossible because it relies on the "magic bullet". This single shot could not have caused all the injuries to JFK and Gov. Connally that the Warren Commission says it did. Commission Exhibit 399 (the magic bullet) is not missing enough material to have passed through JFK and Connally. Till the day he died (June 15th 1993), John Connally had more bullet fragments left in his wrist and leg than were missing from CE 399. This is also not counting the fragments that were removed from Connally at Parkland Hospital on November 22nd 1963. The fragments left in Connally alone would have weighed more than what is missing from CE 399. How could a bullet shed more grains of metal from itself than what is missing from it? Simple, it can't. CE 399 (the magic bullet) wasn't even removed from Connally. It was found on some random gurney at Parkland. CE 399 is not missing enough grains of metal to have passed through JFK and Connally. If there is no magic bullet, The Warren Commission's case crumbles.

Why?

WHY?

Why did you bump this...?:(

Maurice

06-27-2006, 08:59 PM

Why?

WHY?

Why did you bump this...?:(

Sorry, I didn't realize this thread was so old. I had done a Yahoo searh and this popped up. I just hate how people don't challenge the magic bullet theory.

JLBats

06-27-2006, 09:00 PM

Oh well.

Wilhelm-Scream

06-27-2006, 09:01 PM

If you think you're going to suck me into this, think thrice.

Super Flight

06-27-2006, 09:22 PM

yup...the mobsters killed him, i think Al Pacino helped

Motown Marvel

06-27-2006, 11:42 PM

in the film JFK, stone presents a lot of damning evidence that pretty much makes the lone gunman theory impossible....but as we all know, most of all that was fabricated for the film. so im wondering, in regards to strong evidence against the lone gunman theory, what did stone get right?

Spidey-Bat

06-27-2006, 11:43 PM

The JFK conspiracy is bull****.

boywonder13

06-27-2006, 11:53 PM

IN the Men who Killed Kenneday there was this thing about this guy who actually saw a gunman and he cried taht he did not stop him.

He actually has a picture showing a shot from a gun but its so screwed up though, its all black except from the gun shot.

Motown Marvel

06-28-2006, 12:06 AM

yeah, that 'men who killed kennedy' documentary is absolutely fantastic!

GoldenAgeHero

06-28-2006, 12:17 AM

whats the governemnt had him assasainated about?

Gonking

12-09-2006, 06:18 AM

This is so weird:

Abraham Lincoln was elected to Congress in 1846.
John F. Kennedy was elected to Congress in 1946.
Abraham Lincoln was elected President in 1860.
John F. Kennedy was elected President in 1960.
Both were particularly concerned with civil rights.
Both wives lost their children while living in the White House.
Both Presidents were shot on a Friday.
Both Presidents were shot in the head.
Now it gets really weird.
Lincoln's secretary was named Kennedy.
Kennedy's Secretary was named Lincoln.
Both were assassinated by Southerners.
Both were succeeded by Southerners named Johnson.
Andrew Johnson, who succeeded Lincoln, was born in 1808.
Lyndon Johnson, who succeeded Kennedy, was born in 1908.
John Wilkes Booth, who assassinated Lincoln, was born in 1839.
Lee Harvey Oswald, who assassinated Kennedy, was born in 1939.
Both assassins were known by their three names.
Both names are composed of fifteen letters.
Now hang on to your seat.
Lincoln was shot at the theater named 'Ford.'
Kennedy was shot in a car called 'Lincoln' made by 'Ford.'
Lincoln was shot in a theater and his assassin ran and hid in a warehouse.
Kennedy was shot from a warehouse and his assassin ran and hid in a theater.
Booth and Oswald were assassinated before their trials.
And here's the kicker...
A week before Lincoln was shot, he was in Monroe,Maryland
A week before Kennedy was shot, he was with Marilyn Monroe.

:wow: :wow: :wow: :wow: :wow: :wow:

The Amazing Lee

12-09-2006, 06:21 AM

HOLY CRAP!

:eek:

Now what do I do with this information? :o

heypapajinx

12-09-2006, 06:33 AM

bhaha!
yeah. we got a sheet that was called Stranger Than Fiction back in High School that listed all that.
totally bizarro stuff.

Webber

12-09-2006, 08:31 AM

Somebody from the future went back and had a laugh changing history.

Mee

12-09-2006, 08:42 AM

I miss SumOfGod. :csad:

Immortalfire

12-09-2006, 08:44 AM

Old news is so exciting! :wow:

The Chairman

12-09-2006, 11:39 AM

Heh, I knew about that stuff for quite some time. I used to be a major Kenedy assassination. Very SumOfGod-esque in my knowledge and discussions of it.

Eddie Brock

12-09-2006, 11:49 AM

i read this a while back....mind-blowing stuff alright

Matt

12-09-2006, 01:04 PM

Damn reptilians.

Spidey-Bat

12-09-2006, 01:07 PM

Most of that is BS

http://www.snopes.com/history/american/linckenn.htm

Calvin

12-09-2006, 01:11 PM

A week before Lincoln was shot, he was in Monroe,Maryland
A week before Kennedy was shot, he was with Marilyn Monroe.
It would have been better if you wrote it like this:

A week before Lincoln was shot, he was in Monroe,Maryland
A week before Kennedy was shot, he was in Marilyn Monroe.

vibeke_T

12-09-2006, 01:47 PM

nooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo

Demon Within

03-23-2007, 10:43 AM

This thread is for what really happened in Dallas november 22, 1963.

I am a firm believer of a shooter on the grassy knoll. I dont think it was CIA or any government related branch.

Dark Vigilante

03-23-2007, 11:20 AM

There was definitley government officials involved. Kennedy made many enemies while he was in office, including top people in the CIA and the FBI. Plus, if it was a conspiracy, it was clearly covered up by the Warren Comission. Who else could have pulled that off?

Showtime

03-23-2007, 11:26 AM

I was really interested in this subject in my late teens and early twenties. It is a fascinating subject and you can't help but think there is more to it then meets the eye.

Dark Vigilante

03-23-2007, 11:50 AM

Kennedy backed out of the Bay of Pigs Invasion after the CIA misled him about it's potential for sucess without the use of the U.S. military. He fired Allen Dulles and a few other incrediblly powerful officials in the CIA. He cut a deal with Khrushchev to remove missiles from Turkey and to never again attempt to invade Cuba to end the Cuban Missile Crisis. He first escalated the Vietnam War, realized it was doomed for failure, and started to slowly pull out. This was all during the height of the Cold War, when there were people in our government that would willingly throw their entire family in front of a tank to stop the spread of Communism to any other part of the world. We were toppling foreign governments left and right under Eisenhower. Then you have this young guy from Massachusetts come in and reverse all that, and actually compromise and make deals with our sworn enemy. Too many powerful people had too good of a reason to see him dead for it to have just been Lee Harvey Oswald.

Kebab gud

03-23-2007, 11:52 AM

everyone knows it was vandal savage!

Kaboom

03-23-2007, 11:57 AM

Theorizing that one could travel through time within in his own lifetime, Dr. Sam Beckett stepped into the Quantum Leap Accelerator and vanished. He awoke to find himself in the past, suffering from partial amnesia, and facing a mirror image that was not his own. His only guide on the journey was Al. A hologram from the future that only Dr. Beckett could see and hear. Now, Dr. Beckett fins himself leaping from life to life, striving to put right what once went wrong, and each time hoping that his next leap...will be the leap home.

Wilhelm-Scream

03-23-2007, 11:57 AM

This should be in the Tired Subjects Forum.

Dark Vigilante

03-23-2007, 12:02 PM

This should be in the Tired Subjects Forum.

Yeah, it's really been done to death.

Lunar_Wolf

03-23-2007, 12:08 PM

This is what really happened that day

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iZ0-l_LbocY

Dark Vigilante

03-23-2007, 12:10 PM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_ZYAIiErTNg&NR

DorkyFresh

03-23-2007, 12:13 PM

Manic

03-23-2007, 12:20 PM

John F. Kennedy, finally exposed of his dirty dealings and sexual promiscuity toward the end of his presidency, was a national embarrassment. That's when a group of time-traveling people offered him the chance to return to the past, and let him be remembered as a martyr. Traveling back to November 1963, Kennedy then waited at a nearby grassy knoll...

Dark Vigilante

03-23-2007, 12:21 PM

i, personally, believe that most of America is in denial of the truth. i think Lee Harvey Oswald did it all by himself.

most people don't want to believe that Kennedy was killed by just one man because Kennedy was such an important person and Lee Harvey was a nobody, but that's exactly the reason why i think Oswald assassinated the president. he was troubled throughout all his life and he wanted attention and kept insisting to the people he knew that he was going to make a name for himself. he even tried to assassinate General Walker to do exactly that but those plans didn't fall through.

imo, there's not even hard evidence to suggest that anyone else but Lee Harvey Oswald was involved. i know many of you think he's a scape goat for (insert random corrupt group here) but i think he was a troubled man who wanted attention.

Yes, there is incrediblly solid evidence that Lee Harvey Oswald did not act alone. In fact, the House Commitee on Assassinations found this evidence so compelling that they determined that there was a second shooter on the grassy knoll. It's the ballistic acoustics evidence. A recorder on one of the police motorcycles in the motorcade recorded four shots. We know Lee Harvey Oswald shot only three. And the last shot, the one that killed Kennedy, hits the head in such a way that it pushes it backwards. I don't care what any documentary on Discovery of the History Channel tells me, theres no way that the momentum of a bullet coming from behind would force something to move in the direction the bullet came from. It's contrary to common sense, and the good old expression "I don't believe unless I see it" is quite applicable here.

Lee Harvey Oswald defended his innocence until he was killed. He never admitted to anything, and it is far too convenient that he himself was killed. And heres Jack Ruby's thoughts:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=we2eucWXqjg

I'm sorry. Theres just too much evidence against there being a solo shooter.

Demon Within

03-23-2007, 12:27 PM

This should be in the Tired Subjects Forum.

Right next to 99% of your posts.

Go troll somewhere eles I didnt ask for ********s to come to the thread telling me they dont approve of the subject matter. Not to your liking stay the **** out.

Wilhelm-Scream

03-23-2007, 12:36 PM

Right next to 99% of your posts.

Go troll somewhere eles I didnt ask for ********s to come to the thread telling me they dont approve of the subject matter. Not to your liking stay the **** out.Jesus, lol, calm down. :huh:
I can't stand sheeple who think all conspiracy theory is crackpot/nutjob stuff...and if someone thinks the official story is true then they just obviously don't know much about the case. So I'm glad you're interested in it.
But you've got to admit, there have been 50,000 JFK Conspiracy threads on every single message board since the dawn of the internet.
Like, I am highly interested in the ethics involved in the question of whther or not abortion is wrong.......but I'm sure as Hell not going to make an Abortion Thread. There are already a million out there....whole sites devoted to that one topic, in fact. Same applies here. :huh:

Demon Within

03-23-2007, 12:39 PM

Demon Within

03-23-2007, 12:43 PM

Jesus, lol, calm down. :huh:
I can't stand sheeple who think all conspiracy theory is crackpot/nutjob stuff...and if someone thinks the official story is true then they just obviously don't know much about the case. So I'm glad you're interested in it.
But you've got to admit, there have been 50,000 JFK Conspiracy threads on every single message board since the dawn of the internet.
Like, I am highly interested in the ethics involved in the question of whther or not abortion is wrong.......but I'm sure as Hell not going to make an Abortion Thread. There are already a million out there....whole sites devoted to that one topic, in fact. Same applies here. :huh:

Iv been here since 2003 an have never seen one for this. Its been mentioned in a few "conspiracy" threads but only a passing mention really. I believe the answer is still to be found an dont see this subject as "dead". To me looking at threads about Lohan's lack of bra weariing or "im gonna /wrists cause im emo love me daddy im writing poems about death" garbage is more worthless then this.

Manic

03-23-2007, 12:43 PM

He fired 3 total shots from the 6th floor of a building at an angle at a moving vehicle an your going to tell me he hit him TWICE within less then 6 seconds? Thats amazing.
And wasn't one of those angles all wrong from his shooting position?

Dark Vigilante

03-23-2007, 12:47 PM

And wasn't one of those angles all wrong from his shooting position?

Yup. Getting those shots off from his position is one thing. Hitting the President of the United States, a moving target, in the head with three shots in under six seconds is an entirely different matter.

Demon Within

03-23-2007, 12:59 PM

And wasn't one of those angles all wrong from his shooting position?

http://youtube.com/watch?v=o2LXYAOBUpk

Take a look at the head movement. No way was that bullet from the back where oswald was.

Wilhelm-Scream

03-23-2007, 01:00 PM

Iv been here since 2003 an have never seen one for this. Its been mentioned in a few "conspiracy" threads but only a passing mention really. I believe the answer is still to be found an dont see this subject as "dead". To me looking at threads about Lohan's lack of bra weariing or "im gonna /wrists cause im emo love me daddy im writing poems about death" garbage is more worthless then this.

I'm sorry. Maybe you're new to the internet, 'cause of course you can't be on 24/7, and see every thread that may've popped up.
But THAT'S where this cool "search" function comes in.
Like, I just searched for "Kennedy Assassination" (and I only looked for threads about it. If I'd searched posts and used different combinations of words, I'd find way more)
and found:

JFK Conspiracy (http://www.superherohype.com/forums/showthread.php?t=86657&highlight=kennedy+assassination)

Kennedy Assassination: New Footage Unearthed (http://www.superherohype.com/forums/showthread.php?t=266066&highlight=kennedy+assassination)

JFK Murder Mystery (http://www.superherohype.com/forums/showthread.php?t=228492&highlight=kennedy+assassination)

Who Really Killed JFK (http://www.superherohype.com/forums/showthread.php?t=222586&highlight=kennedy+assassination)

Who Do You Think Killed Kennedy (http://www.superherohype.com/forums/showthread.php?t=145098&highlight=kennedy+assassination)

40 Years Ago, What Really Happened (http://www.superherohype.com/forums/showthread.php?t=85642&highlight=kennedy+assassination)

...just found those effortlessly, and I didn't even include ones I found that were just about conspiracies in general but got dominated by the JFK Conspiracy.

Also, people complain about Lohan, Paris Hilton, Tom Cruise and "Girl Advice" threads as being "Tired Subjects" A.L.L. the time....only usually the threadmaker isn't such a defensive jerk about it.

But I know your type, rather than take any constructive criticism or expression of a different opinion, you scream "Troll" and try in your impotence to get people in trouble by crying to a mod....so rest assured, th^t was all I had to say...and it WASN'T "trolling" and I won't return to your redundant thread.:up:

Demon Within

03-23-2007, 02:07 PM

cause of course you can't be on 24/7, and see every thread that may've popped up.
:up:

You are 100% correct.

You came in to the thread went off subject to gripe you didnt like the content. Thats trolling. Go somewhere else to troll I dont find you half as funny as some seem too. Im asking you politely to not post in the thread if you have nothing to contribute other then "this is old". Thanks.

Abaddon

03-23-2007, 10:14 PM

http://www.as-seen-on-tv-compare.com/images/products/magic-bullet.jpg

Spidey-Bat

03-23-2007, 11:19 PM

I believe what is documented in the Warren Commission. On Discovery Channel, there used to be a series called "Unsolved History" (it's on Discovery Times now in reruns) and they tested every possibility. It pretty much debunked every conspiracy theory. If you are interested in the subject, I'd recommend checking it out.

http://shopping.discovery.com/product-54765.html

The Chairman

03-24-2007, 12:12 AM

I remember actually seeing JFK years ago becoming obsessed with the topic. I found the thing so intriguing and at the same time scary. To this day, I still find that troubling that people think that Oswald acted alone. There's far too much evidence that points to a conspiracy. As pointed out, Kennedy had tons of enemies (mobsters, the Communist Party, even within the government) who wanted him out of the way. Also, the Warren Commission does not seem accurate to me at all. I think a lot is still covered up. For example, the "Magic Bullet" theory is quite possibly the most mystifyingly stupid theory I've ever heard.

DorkyFresh

03-24-2007, 03:16 AM

A recorder on one of the police motorcycles in the motorcade recorded four shots. We know Lee Harvey Oswald shot only three.

"In response to Thomas's findings, Michael O'Dell concluded in his report that the prior reports relied on incorrect timelines and made unfounded assumptions that, when corrected, do not support the identification of gunshots on the recording.

In 2003, ABC News aired the results of their investigation of the assassination in a news-documentary program called Peter Jennings Reporting: The Kennedy Assassination — Beyond Conspiracy. Based on computer diagrams and recreations done by Dale K. Myers, ABC News concluded that the sound recordings on the Dictabelt could not have come from Dealey Plaza and that the Police Officer H.B. McLain was correct in his assertions that he had not yet entered Dealey Plaza at the time of the assassination."

i watched this program and i have a pretty good knowledge on how 3d models/simulations work. Dale K. Myers recreated the events on that day to almost exact accuracy using multiple videos with multiple angles to trace where H.B. McLain was during the assassination and the simulation shows that he had not entered the Plaza yet.

And the last shot, the one that killed Kennedy, hits the head in such a way that it pushes it backwards. I don't care what any documentary on Discovery of the History Channel tells me, theres no way that the momentum of a bullet coming from behind would force something to move in the direction the bullet came from. It's contrary to common sense, and the good old expression "I don't believe unless I see it" is quite applicable here.

maybe you better take a better look at the Zapruder footage. if you watch carefully right before the Kennedy's head flings back there are 2 frames where his head jolts forward. it's a significant jolt right before his head flings back. it's almost as if a bullet hit him from behind that made his head jolt forward. if you don't believe me take a look for yourself...

http://www.john-f-kennedy.net/jfk468.gif

...scientists have proposed the theory the reason his head flung backwards was the result of his skull exploding. the positioning of the exit wound (front, right of his head) supports that theory and i happen to agree with it.

Also, the Warren Commission does not seem accurate to me at all. I think a lot is still covered up. For example, the "Magic Bullet" theory is quite possibly the most mystifyingly stupid theory I've ever heard.
i've never read the Warren Commission report's theory but the special on ABC called "the Kennedy Assassination: Beyond Conspiracy" showed a 3d simulation of how it could've happened. they took into account the body positioning and locations. it's only a magic bullet if both men were facing directly forward with Connelly directly in front of Kennedy like this...

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v83/Geijutsuka/SHH%20stuff/mbf.jpg

but both men were slightly facing their right side (towards the crowd) and Connelly's seat was a little bit towards the middle of the car. there was a small space between Connelly and the door. put those factors in together and it doesn't seem so much like a magic bullet...

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v83/Geijutsuka/SHH%20stuff/mbt.jpg

...that 3d simulation was also able to use Connely and Kennedy's wounds as reference points for creating the trajectory of the bullet. they were able to trace the origin of that bullet to........you guess it.......the 6th floor of the Texas School Book Depository.

heypapajinx

03-24-2007, 03:23 AM

What?!?!?!?!?!
John F Kennedy Is Dead!!!

Demon Within

03-24-2007, 08:05 AM

"In response to Thomas's findings, Michael O'Dell concluded in his report that the prior reports relied on incorrect timelines and made unfounded assumptions that, when corrected, do not support the identification of gunshots on the recording.

In 2003, ABC News aired the results of their investigation of the assassination in a news-documentary program called Peter Jennings Reporting: The Kennedy Assassination — Beyond Conspiracy. Based on computer diagrams and recreations done by Dale K. Myers, ABC News concluded that the sound recordings on the Dictabelt could not have come from Dealey Plaza and that the Police Officer H.B. McLain was correct in his assertions that he had not yet entered Dealey Plaza at the time of the assassination."

i watched this program and i have a pretty good knowledge on how 3d models/simulations work. Dale K. Myers recreated the events on that day to almost exact accuracy using multiple videos with multiple angles to trace where H.B. McLain was during the assassination and the simulation shows that he had not entered the Plaza yet.

maybe you better take a better look at the Zapruder footage. if you watch carefully right before the Kennedy's head flings back there are 2 frames where his head jolts forward. it's a significant jolt right before his head flings back. it's almost as if a bullet hit him from behind that made his head jolt forward. if you don't believe me take a look for yourself...

http://www.john-f-kennedy.net/jfk468.gif

...scientists have proposed the theory the reason his head flung backwards was the result of his skull exploding. the positioning of the exit wound (front, right of his head) supports that theory and i happen to agree with it.

i've never read the Warren Commission report's theory but the special on ABC called "the Kennedy Assassination: Beyond Conspiracy" showed a 3d simulation of how it could've happened. they took into account the body positioning and locations. it's only a magic bullet if both men were facing directly forward with Connelly directly in front of Kennedy like this...

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v83/Geijutsuka/SHH%20stuff/mbf.jpg

but both men were slightly facing their right side (towards the crowd) and Connelly's seat was a little bit towards the middle of the car. there was a small space between Connelly and the door. put those factors in together and it doesn't seem so much like a magic bullet...

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v83/Geijutsuka/SHH%20stuff/mbt.jpg

...that 3d simulation was also able to use Connely and Kennedy's wounds as reference points for creating the trajectory of the bullet. they were able to trace the origin of that bullet to........you guess it.......the 6th floor of the Texas School Book Depository.

That video is fake. The blood mist was edited in by someone at a later date.

heypapajinx

03-24-2007, 08:22 AM

That video is fake. The blood mist was edited in by someone at a later date.
yeah!!
and i hear they're going to do a remake of it and the guy who did 300's blood effects is going to take over the project.:up::up:

Demon Within

03-24-2007, 09:24 AM

yeah!!
and i hear they're going to do a remake of it and the guy who did 300's blood effects is going to take over the project.:up::up:

Ok.

Anyway notice the head movement along with the blood spray. If he was shot from the back why would his head go back to the direction of the initial impact? When you get punched in the face does your head move INTO the fist an not away from it? No it doesnt.

Dark Vigilante

03-24-2007, 09:27 AM

Based on computer diagrams and recreations done by Dale K. Myers, ABC News concluded that the sound recordings on the Dictabelt could not have come from Dealey Plaza and that the Police Officer H.B. McLain was correct in his assertions that he had not yet entered Dealey Plaza at the time of the assassination.".

I think I would put more faith into the House Committee of Assassinations then ABC News. If it was covered up, the U.S. government would have quite the motivation to cover it up as much as possible, yet in 1979, the House of Representatives determined that there was a second shooter. Not to mention that the committee had access to literally thousands of classifed CIA and FBI files pretaining to the assassination that are still not publically available, including to ABC in 2003. I would rely more on the findings of a government whom has further implicated themselves then a ABC News documentary that is already very questionable in it's findings. I'll address some of the scientific findings of the documentary later on tonight, because I am also very educated on this matter.

Dark Vigilante

03-24-2007, 09:27 AM

Dark Vigilante

03-24-2007, 09:27 AM

Demon Within

03-24-2007, 10:09 AM

Oswald spent a lot of time in Europe. Whos to say he didnt align with the russians at some point? Perhaps they used Oswald because if it was known back then communists had killed the American president we might have had a nuclear war. Russians wanted him dead as much as anyone but not if it meant nuclear war. Using Oswald solved that problem.

The russian made SVD rifle just happened to have been created in 1963.

Spidey-Bat

03-24-2007, 12:42 PM

Ok.

Anyway notice the head movement along with the blood spray. If he was shot from the back why would his head go back to the direction of the initial impact? When you get punched in the face does your head move INTO the fist an not away from it? No it doesnt.

Are you comparing a bullet shot several hundred feet away with a rifle to a punch? That is incredibly dumb. Penn & Teller did the test on their show. They had a melon on a stand, Teller shot it with a similar rifle and it fell towards them, not away from them.

Demon Within

03-24-2007, 02:05 PM

Are you comparing a bullet shot several hundred feet away with a rifle to a punch? That is incredibly dumb. Penn & Teller did the test on their show. They had a melon on a stand, Teller shot it with a similar rifle and it fell towards them, not away from them.

Are you comparing a melon on a stand to a human head? Thats pretty dumb.

The first shot went clean through his neck into connely shoulder. JFK barely moved. Why when it hit him in the head did the bullet have an expolde type effect for the head shot? He barely moved when shot in the neck yet when shot in the head hes flung BACKWARDS towards the point of impact. Makes no sense. Watch the video. If it hit him in the back of his skull why would his whole body jerk towards the shooter instead of away where the bullets momentum was going.

Penn an Teller, wow im impressed. :whatever:

Spidey-Bat

03-24-2007, 03:46 PM

Are you comparing a melon on a stand to a human head? Thats pretty dumb.

The Melon, which was wrapped with a special tape, had the exact same consistencies as a human head. It was placed on the stand so it's movement was clear.

The first shot went clean through his neck into connely shoulder. JFK barely moved. Why when it hit him in the head did the bullet have an expolde type effect for the head shot? He barely moved when shot in the neck yet when shot in the head hes flung BACKWARDS towards the point of impact. Makes no sense. Watch the video. If it hit him in the back of his skull why would his whole body jerk towards the shooter instead of away where the bullets momentum was going.

Penn an Teller, wow im impressed. :whatever:

He barely moved because he was shot in the neck. It's more stable than the head. That's why he barely moved when he was hit. It jerks towards the shooter because that is how the body reacts. If you don't believe me, go check out the episode (download it, rent it, whatever). It is proof his head would have moved back when shot from behind. If I am wrong, then it should not be hard to prove it.

DorkyFresh

03-24-2007, 04:27 PM

That video is fake. The blood mist was edited in by someone at a later date.
you talkin' bout the Zapruder film? blood myst or not, it's clear to see that the front of his head exploded. if he was shot from the front, the back of his head would've exploded and the explosion would've sent his head forward instead of backward....it's simple physics.

Anyway notice the head movement along with the blood spray. If he was shot from the back why would his head go back to the direction of the initial impact? When you get punched in the face does your head move INTO the fist an not away from it? No it doesnt.
i didn't realize people's heads exploded when they get punched...:whatever: you can't compare a punch to a bullet shot. that's like trying to compare a bruised arm to a severed arm. also, it's obvious you didn't look at the link i provided. if you did, you would've seen that his head jolted forward for 2 frames right before his head flings back.

I think I would put more faith into the House Committee of Assassinations then ABC News.
the problem with that train of thought is that you're assuming that nothing authentic or worthwhile can come from a tv special. i'm not looking at it from the point of view of "it's just tv, everything's fake". i looked at it from an unbiased point of view and the results from the 3d simulation look damn accurate despite it being on an ABC special.

if that exact 3d simulation came from the House Committee of Assassinations would it be any more or less credible?

The first shot went clean through his neck into connely shoulder. JFK barely moved. Why when it hit him in the head did the bullet have an expolde type effect for the head shot? He barely moved when shot in the neck yet when shot in the head hes flung BACKWARDS towards the point of impact. Makes no sense. Watch the video. If it hit him in the back of his skull why would his whole body jerk towards the shooter instead of away where the bullets momentum was going.
if you're comparing a neck to a skull you must not know anatomy...

...his neck didn't explode because necks normally don't explode when struck by bullets. it's not uncommon for heads to explode when struck by a bullet. the skull has space inside of it for the brain. it's much like coconut...if you drain it, it'll be hollow. when a bullet breaks through an encasement (skull) a lot of the time when he exits it takes chunks of the encasement with it. in other words...the bullet hit bone and broke a lot of the bone when it exited. the neck is a different story because the neck is belt nothing like the skull. it's ridiculous to think the neck is going to act the same way as a skull when being struck by a bullet.

and once again, you obviously didn't click the link i provided because it clearly shows his head jolting FORWARD before it flings backwards...

Demon Within

03-24-2007, 05:19 PM

you talkin' bout the Zapruder film? blood myst or not, it's clear to see that the front of his head exploded. if he was shot from the front, the back of his head would've exploded and the explosion would've sent his head forward instead of backward....it's simple physics.

i didn't realize people's heads exploded when they get punched...:whatever: you can't compare a punch to a bullet shot. that's like trying to compare a bruised arm to a severed arm. also, it's obvious you didn't look at the link i provided. if you did, you would've seen that his head jolted forward for 2 frames right before his head flings back.

the problem with that train of thought is that you're assuming that nothing authentic or worthwhile can come from a tv special. i'm not looking at it from the point of view of "it's just tv, everything's fake". i looked at it from an unbiased point of view and the results from the 3d simulation look damn accurate despite it being on an ABC special.

if that exact 3d simulation came from the House Committee of Assassinations would it be any more or less credible?

if you're comparing a neck to a skull you must not know anatomy...

...his neck didn't explode because necks normally don't explode when struck by bullets. it's not uncommon for heads to explode when struck by a bullet. the skull has space inside of it for the brain. it's much like coconut...if you drain it, it'll be hollow. when a bullet breaks through an encasement (skull) a lot of the time when he exits it takes chunks of the encasement with it. in other words...the bullet hit bone and broke a lot of the bone when it exited. the neck is a different story because the neck is belt nothing like the skull. it's ridiculous to think the neck is going to act the same way as a skull when being struck by a bullet.

and once again, you obviously didn't click the link i provided because it clearly shows his head jolting FORWARD before it flings backwards...

My example of punching is about momentum not force. When you get punched the momentum pushes you away from the fist, not to it like you are suggesting for a bullet.

His head does not jolt forward first in your video hes starting to slump forward when the bullet from the front flings his head back. Also the front of his face isnt the one that was blown up it was the back of his head check the autopsy photos. If the bullet hit him in the back of the head first why would the bullet have blown up the back of his head an not the front where it should have?

The bullet comes from in front thats why. It hits him just above the ear on the rights side. The angle in which the bullet entered is the wrong angle for Oswald to have shot but a perfect angle for someone from the knoll laying down with the rifle point slight upward to have done.

Demon Within

03-24-2007, 06:32 PM

Watch the Zapruder film. The driver of the car pulls out a gun an shoots JFK in the side of the head.

Spidey-Bat

03-24-2007, 06:35 PM

My example of punching is about momentum not force. When you get punched the momentum pushes you away from the fist, not to it like you are suggesting for a bullet.
Bullets pierce through you. Punches don't. That is why the body reacts differently to each.

Stop with your conspiracy theories. You are making claims with no evidence to back it up.

Dark Vigilante

03-24-2007, 06:43 PM

the problem with that train of thought is that you're assuming that nothing authentic or worthwhile can come from a tv special. i'm not looking at it from the point of view of "it's just tv, everything's fake". i looked at it from an unbiased point of view and the results from the 3d simulation look damn accurate despite it being on an ABC special.

if that exact 3d simulation came from the House Committee of Assassinations would it be any more or less credible?

The problem with your line of thinking is that your making the assumption that I'm assuming. I'm not giving complete discredit to the ABC special, and I'm certainly not implying that "nothing authentic or worthwhile can come from a tv special". What I am saying is that I would put more faith in the information provided to us by the U.S. government and not ABC News. Considering that the U.S. government is held responsible by many for the JFK assassination, it seems that it would be odd for the government to say that there was a second assassin if they weren't pretty damn sure. Plus, as I mentioned, and you didn't address, the House Committee on Assassinations had access to thousands of classified scientific reports, testimonies, and interviews that still to this day have not been classified, and that ABC News did not have at their disposal while making their documentary. And it is naive to say that computer modeling alone proves that there was one assassin. Graphic modeling is an art, and like all art and media it is created and manipulated by people in any way they see fit. I'm simply saying that because ABC News says so doesnt mean it is so. They did not address many other important issues concerning November 23rd 1963, and stuck only to the material they could use to prove their case. Please, don't be so naive, and investigate some more diverse and credible sources.

Demon Within

03-24-2007, 06:47 PM

Bullets pierce through you. Punches don't. That is why the body reacts differently to each.

Stop with your conspiracy theories. You are making claims with no evidence to back it up.

Your a moron.

Demon Within

03-24-2007, 06:50 PM

Bullets pierce through you. Punches don't. That is why the body reacts differently to each.

Stop with your conspiracy theories. You are making claims with no evidence to back it up.

Watch the video. The driver turns around with a silver gun in his hand an shoots JFK in the temple. Thats pretty good evidence Oswald didnt shoot him.

Spidey-Bat

03-24-2007, 06:50 PM

Your a moron.

You're

Watch the video. The driver turns around with a silver gun in his hand an shoots JFK in the temple. Thats pretty good evidence Oswald didnt shoot him.

First of all, what video?

Second, are you seriously trying to tell me that the man DRIVING Kennedy's car shot him? That is absolute BS. Everyone would know it was him since it is on video. Wouldn't Gov. Connelly, his wife, Jackie, and the guy next to the driver have noticed the man driving the car and was inches away pull out a gun, shoot him, and continue driving? Don't even think saying "They were in on it" is a legitimate reason.

DorkyFresh

03-24-2007, 06:53 PM

My example of punching is about momentum not force. When you get punched the momentum pushes you away from the fist, not to it like you are suggesting for a bullet.
you cannot compare a punch to a gunshot. a bullet is much smaller and faster than a fist can be. a fist can only do damage by impact, but a bullet's purpose is to penetrate. the fact that a bullet is at least 10 times smaller than a fist makes the way they work incredibly different especially in regards to momentum and impact. they're extremely different...that's why you really can't compare them.

bad comparison. i agree that when a person gets punched they move in the direction of the punch, but punches don't go through a person and make an explosion on the other side like bullets do.

His head does not jolt forward first in your video hes starting to slump forward when the bullet from the front flings his head back.
lol...denial is the first step to acceptance.

Also the front of his face isnt the one that was blown up it was the back of his head check the autopsy photos. If the bullet hit him in the back of the head first why would the bullet have blown up the back of his head an not the front where it should have?
i never said it blew up his FACE (please read more carefully next time), i said the front of his head exploded. if anyone needs to check the autopsy photos it's you. here...(warning: real photos of JFK's autopsy!)

http://www.celebritymorgue.com/jfk/kennedy-side.jpg
http://www.celebritymorgue.com/jfk/kennedy-back.jpg

...as you can see the first link shows the top of his head missing, but most of the damage is to the front part of the top of his head. even part of his forehead is damaged. the second link shows most of the back of his head intact. note the bald spot on his head which is on the top of a person's head in the back. these real autopsy photos contradict your assumption that the explosion occurred on the BACK of his head.

besides...you saying that he was shot from the FRONT with the BACK of his head exploding contradicts the movement of his head. if he were shot from the front with the BACK of his head exploding, we would've seen his head fling FORWARD because of the explosion happening on the BACK of his head. such is not the case, we see the FRONT of his head explode and his head fling backwards as a result of the explosion. go back and watch the film, it's very clear that the explosion happened in FRONT of him...not BEHIND him.

The bullet comes from in front thats why. It hits him just above the ear on the rights side. The angle in which the bullet entered is the wrong angle for Oswald to have shot but a perfect angle for someone from the knoll laying down with the rifle point slight upward to have done.
look at those autopsy photos and tell me that you really believe the bullet entered from the front, right above his ear...

...before i continue this discussion with you, i'd like to know if you're even open to the possibility that Oswald acted on his own. if you're not open to that possibility, discussion over.

DorkyFresh

03-24-2007, 07:11 PM

Plus, as I mentioned, and you didn't address, the House Committee on Assassinations had access to thousands of classified scientific reports, testimonies, and interviews that still to this day have not been classified
that IS strange that all those documents haven't been declassified, but you don't need every piece of the puzzle in order to figure it out. there are detectives out there who can solve a crime with only one piece of evidence.

And it is naive to say that computer modeling alone proves that there was one assassin. Graphic modeling is an art, and like all art and media it is created and manipulated by people in any way they see fit. I'm simply saying that because ABC News says so doesnt mean it is so. They did not address many other important issues concerning November 23rd 1963, and stuck only to the material they could use to prove their case. Please, don't be so naive, and investigate some more diverse and credible sources.
graphic modeling is an art, but 3d simulation is a science. once again, the problem with your train of thought is that you don't think 3d simulations be accurate when the exact is true. 3d simulations are VERY accurate. i don't THINK simulations are accurate, i KNOW they are. i don't mean to toot my own horn but i work as a 3d person doing instructional materials and simulations for the Navy so you're not just talking to a person who blindfully saw the 3d simulation and instantly thought "omg! it's troo!!!" i'm not saying the simulation is the end all, be all of evidence...but it's shows a very convincing simulation of one possible way the events on that day happened.

so...please don't be so naive and think that the special on ABC is the only thing on JFK i've seen. it just happens to be the most convincing, to me, out of all the other theories i've heard about.

Watch the video. The driver turns around with a silver gun in his hand an shoots JFK in the temple. Thats pretty good evidence Oswald didnt shoot him.

please tell me you're joking...

Demon Within

03-24-2007, 07:13 PM

you cannot compare a punch to a gunshot. a bullet is much smaller and faster than a fist can be. a fist can only do damage by impact, but a bullet's purpose is to penetrate. the fact that a bullet is at least 10 times smaller than a fist makes the way they work incredibly different especially in regards to momentum and impact. they're extremely different...that's why you really can't compare them.

bad comparison. i agree that when a person gets punched they move in the direction of the punch, but punches don't go through a person and make an explosion on the other side like bullets do.

lol...denial is the first step to acceptance.

i never said it blew up his FACE (please read more carefully next time), i said the front of his head exploded. if anyone needs to check the autopsy photos it's you. here...(warning: real photos of JFK's autopsy!)

http://www.celebritymorgue.com/jfk/kennedy-side.jpg
http://www.celebritymorgue.com/jfk/kennedy-back.jpg

...as you can see the first link shows the top of his head missing, but most of the damage is to the front part of the top of his head. even part of his forehead is damaged. the second link shows most of the back of his head intact. note the bald spot on his head which is on the top of a person's head in the back. these real autopsy photos contradict your assumption that the explosion occurred on the BACK of his head.

besides...you saying that he was shot from the FRONT with the BACK of his head exploding contradicts the movement of his head. if he were shot from the front with the BACK of his head exploding, we would've seen his head fling FORWARD because of the explosion happening on the BACK of his head. such is not the case, we see the FRONT of his head explode and his head fling backwards as a result of the explosion. go back and watch the film, it's very clear that the explosion happened in FRONT of him...not BEHIND him.

look at those autopsy photos and tell me that you really believe the bullet entered from the front, right above his ear...

...before i continue this discussion with you, i'd like to know if you're even open to the possibility that Oswald acted on his own. if you're not open to that possibility, discussion over.

Its possible but not likely. Theres far to many reasons of why he didnt.

1) How did he become such a good shot when on April 10, 1963 he failed to assassinate Major General Walker (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edwin_Walker) at less then a 100ft while he was sitting at a desk. Luck?

2) Why would Oswald deny having killed the President? Why would he claim he was a patsy? Fishy.

3) Not only was he one of the best (or luckiest) shooters in the WORLD he was also one of the fastest shooting 3 times (twice on target) in under 8 seconds. Two of the shots coming back to back in under 3 seconds. Amazing stuff.

4) A bullet goes through someone yes but it also carries that persons momentum with it because it "drags" through the area making Oswalds headshot about as impossible as it gets.

Dark Vigilante

03-24-2007, 07:16 PM

Stop with your conspiracy theories. You are making claims with no evidence to back it up.

Eisenhower had been toppling leftist governments for years all throughout his presidency. Iran, Congo, and Guatamala to name a few.

Fact.

There were people in the top levels of our government whom had dedicated their lives to the anhiliation of communism all over the world.

Fact.

There were many people in the top levels of our government that would gladly force some sort of war with the Soviet Union.

Fact.

Kennedy was misled by the CIA in 1961 about the potential sucess of the Bay of Pigs Invasion.

Fact.

Kennedy refused to directly use the U.S. military and held the CIA responsible for the invasion's failure.

Fact.

Kennedy fired Allen Dulles, and many others that had been at the top of the CIA for years.

Fact.

The Mafia had multi-million dollar business interests in Cuba and lost all of it when Castro took power, and lost it all for good when the Bay of Pigs Invasion failed. They held Kennedy responsible.

Fact.

John F. and Robert Kennedy ruthlessly attack the Mafia and organized crime in the countries, one of the first administrations to seriously do so.

Fact.

The CIA had used the Mafia as an asset in it's dealings with Cuba and their attempts to covertly wage war with them.

Fact.

During the Cuban Missile Crisis, Kennedy decides to "quarantine" Cuba instead of listening to the advice of some of his top military advisors to attack and invade the country, much to their dismay.

Fact.

Kennedy compromises with Khrushchev to end the Cuban Missile Crisis. Concessions include a promise to never again interfer with Castro's Cuba and to remove American nuclear missiles from Turkey. Many hardliners fear Kennedy is a closet communist.

Fact.

Kennedy, realizing that Vietnam was lost and that further American involvement in the struggle to protect the country from communist unification would only result in a tragic quagmire, orders 1000 U.S. military advisors home by Christmas, 1963, and all forces withdrawn by Christmas of 1965. Kennedy publically remains optimistic, fearing that if he was blamed for losing Vietnam he would not win in 1964. Hardline Cold Warriors are outraged.

Fact. (Don't believe me? http://www.history-matters.com/vietnam1963.htm. The actual Defense Department orders and transcript of the 8th SECDEF Conference on Vietnam is on the left.)

There was a great deal of powerful people in the country, in the government specifically, in the Mafia, and in anti-Castro groups that had every reason and even the means to assassinate the President.

Fact.

Lee Harvey Oswald defended his innocence until he died, and called himself a "patsy".

Fact.

Jack Ruby claimed he was part of a massive conspiracy that would never be revealed to the public because the people responsible were in incrediblly high positions.

Fact.

One of the board members of the Warren Commission was Allen Dulles, the head of CIA that Kennedy fired in '61 and held responsible for the failure of the Bay of Pigs invasion.

Fact.

The deliberations of the Commission were done privately, and the documents used to come to their conclusions were sealed by President Johnson until the year 2032.

Fact.

The House Committee on Assassinations determined in 1979 that there was a conspiracy to assassinate the President, that there was a second shooter on the grassy knoll, and that they could not rule out the very real possibility that rouge elements in our government were responsible for the President's murder.

Fact.

The deliberations of the Committee, like the Warren Commission, were done privately, and the evidence used was also kept classifed.

Fact.

The U.S. government has still not released thousands of files pretaining to the assassination.

Fact.

Johnson reverses Kennedy's orders and exponentially escalates the Vietnam War shortly after JFK's assassination, claiming he will not see Vietnam go the way China did.

Fact.

The Gulf of Tonkin incident itself is highly questionable and has never been completely proven to have even taken place.

Fact.

Lee Harvey Oswald was deranged and acted alone in assassinating President John F. Kennedy.

No way.

Spidey-Bat

03-24-2007, 07:22 PM

All of those are random and unrelated facts for the most part. You are construing them into seemingly cohesive evidence to support some left field conspiracy theory. None of that is clear, solid evidence to support a theory that Oswald did not do it. Some of that is even laughable (like Oswald and Ruby's testimony about their involvement).

Its possible but not likely. Theres far to many reasons of why he didnt.

1) How did he become such a good shot when on April 10, 1963 he failed to assassinate Major General Walker (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edwin_Walker) at less then a 100ft while he was sitting at a desk. Luck?

He was likely very nervous about his emotions caused him to miss. He was probably more prepared to shoot Kennedy.

2) Why would Oswald deny having killed the President? Why would he claim he was a patsy? Fishy.
Oh yeah. He was clearly innocent because he denied it. :whatever:

3) Not only was he one of the best (or luckiest) shooters in the WORLD he was also one of the fastest shooting 3 times (twice on target) in under 8 seconds. Two of the shots coming back to back in under 3 seconds. Amazing stuff.

He had Marine Corp. training so he knew how use a rifle quickly.

4) A bullet goes through someone yes but it also carries that persons momentum with it because it "drags" through the area making Oswalds headshot about as impossible as it gets.
No it doesn't. The bullet goes through and when it goes out, it "explodes" and forces Kennedy's head back.

Demon Within

03-24-2007, 07:30 PM

please tell me you're joking...

Watch the video. I dare you. http://youtube.com/watch?v=xPRpfsLKink

Theres the link. So you dont have to watch the whole video go to 29 seconds into it. Its the first appearance of blood mist an youll also notice the driver turned completely around with an outstretched arm an a silver object in his hand. Once the headshot is registered he quickly turns around an steps on the pedal. Also notice no one was watching him. Another thing to consider is the doctors who did the autopsy indicated JFKs headshot for more accurate of a hand gun wound the rifle.

One more thing. Multiple people including people inside of the cars following JFKs said they smelled gun powder.

Dark Vigilante

03-24-2007, 07:31 PM

that IS strange that all those documents haven't been declassified, but you don't need every piece of the puzzle in order to figure it out. there are detectives out there who can solve a crime with only one piece of evidence.

Yes, but your straying from the topic. The U.S. government is a far more reliable source of information then ABC News. I'm not discrediting the validity of all television documentaries, I'm saying that on this matter, the government had more information available to them, more time to investigate, and more evidence to comb over, and they had a reason to lie or be misleading, yet they didn't. You can solve many crimes with only one piece of evidence, but when a case is so disputable that you have to get down to the most nitty gritty of science to use as your evidence, you need everything available to you to make some sort of determination.

graphic modeling is an art, but 3d simulation is a science. once again, the problem with your train of thought is that you don't think 3d simulations be accurate when the exact is true.

On the contrary, I know 3D simulations can be accurate, but I also know that they can be manipulated or used to mislead.

3d simulations are VERY accurate. i don't THINK simulations are accurate, i KNOW they are. i don't mean to toot my own horn but i work as a 3d person doing instructional materials and simulations for the Navy so you're not just talking to a person who blindfully saw the 3d simulation and instantly thought "omg! it's troo!!!" i'm not saying the simulation is the end all, be all of evidence...but it's shows a very convincing simulation of one possible way the events on that day happened.

Yes, and that one possible way is ABC's one possible way. It may be convincing, but as I said, 3D simulation can be manipulated, and we should still be skeptical, especially with the amount of evidence that is not included in the documentary, and when the U.S. government has already determined that there was a second shooter.

so...please don't be so naive and think that the special on ABC is the only thing on JFK i've seen. it just happens to be the most convincing, to me, out of all the other theories i've heard about.

The only evidence you've given so far in this debate is from the ABC special, which I'm certain we can now agree cannot be considered the most solid of sources to base your information on.

...

Dark Vigilante

03-24-2007, 07:36 PM

edit

Dark Vigilante

03-24-2007, 07:36 PM

All of those are random and unrelated facts for the most part. You are construing them into seemingly cohesive evidence to support some left field conspiracy theory. None of that is clear, solid evidence to support a theory that Oswald did not do it. Some of that is even laughable (like Oswald and Ruby's testimony about their involvement).

First of all, heres Oswald and Ruby's testimony:

Oswald
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_ZYAIiErTNg

Ruby
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=we2eucWXqjg

And secondly, the information I gave you is completely relevent. Perhaps if you could comprehend the big picture it would become more clear to you. Every thing I said in that post was factual motivation for an assassination of the President at the hands of some of the most powerful people in the country at the time. It historical fact that all of those things happened. You can find it by doing light research. To call it support for some "left field" conspiracy is incredibly naive and merely only displays your apalling ignorance. Open your mind and consider something other then what has been fed to you.

Demon Within

03-24-2007, 07:50 PM

Talk about non solid evidence.

He was likely very nervous about his emotions caused him to miss. He was probably more prepared to shoot Kennedy.

Good one. More prepared and less nervous to shoot the President of the U.S.A in broad day light with hundred of people around then a Major General sitting a a desk with no one watching. Perfectly understandable.

Oh yeah. He was clearly innocent because he denied it.

He is the ONLY person to assassinate a public figure an deny it. Everyother assassin has admitted to doing so. Odd.

He had Marine Corp. training so he knew how use a rifle quickly.

Makes sense. Except for the fact his shots were something PROFESSIONAL SNIPERS dream of. He shot off 2 rounds in under 3 seconds. This was a bolt action italian rifle he had to chamber every shot. Shot>chamber>shot in under 3 seconds while reaquiring his moving target that was going away from him.

No it doesn't. The bullet goes through and when it goes out, it "explodes" and forces Kennedy's head back.

A bullet doesnt magically go through you it forces its way. Your sking/blood/skull and everything else "drag" the bullet or slow it down. The "exploding" effect is the bullet exiting an it along with air pressure and momentum force everything apart outwards. How again does the bullet coming from the back, that "explodes" the BACK of his head force his head and body BACKWARD toward the direction the bullet was shot? Please enlighten me.

Demon Within

03-24-2007, 07:53 PM

An yet no one comments about the video I have given showing where the bullet came from even though I gave the link an exact time you can see the evidence.

DorkyFresh

03-24-2007, 07:55 PM

1) How did he become such a good shot when on April 10, 1963 he failed to assassinate Major General Walker (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edwin_Walker) at less then a 100ft while he was sitting at a desk. Luck?
different situations. i don't know all the details surrounding that incident but it's possible that Lee Harvey was in a bad location, maybe there were structures or trees in the way. Lee Harvey had an almost perfect setup at Dealy Plaza.

2) Why would Oswald deny having killed the President? Why would he claim he was a patsy? Fishy.
he's not inhuman. he might've been calm and collective if he killed Kennedy but that was at that time. just because a person is calm and collective during a certain situation doesn't mean he always will be. if he killed Kennedy, at that point...he was in control. he wasn't in control when he was handcuffed with cameras and lights in his face. i'm sure he was very scared and fearful for his life. there are PLENTY of people that lie because of fear.

3) Not only was he one of the best (or luckiest) shooters in the WORLD he was also one of the fastest shooting 3 times (twice on target) in under 8 seconds. Two of the shots coming back to back in under 3 seconds. Amazing stuff.
there have been 40+ year old men (slower men) that have proven that 3 shots can be fired in 8 seconds with the same kind of gun with similar results. man can work wonders when his adrenaline is pumping.

4) A bullet goes through someone yes but it also carries that persons momentum with it because it "drags" through the area making Oswalds headshot about as impossible as it gets.
the momentum DID effect Kennedy's head. i showed you the animated gif of Kennedy's head jolting forward right before his head flings back. this forward jolt is the effect of the bullet digging into Kennedy's head. the backwards movement is caused by the explosion. his head doesn't move a few inches in 1 frame of film just because he leans. that's in impact effect....not a leaning effect.

Dark Vigilante

03-24-2007, 08:00 PM

Watch the video. I dare you. http://youtube.com/watch?v=xPRpfsLKink

Theres the link. So you dont have to watch the whole video go to 29 seconds into it. Its the first appearance of blood mist an youll also notice the driver turned completely around with an outstretched arm an a silver object in his hand. Once the headshot is registered he quickly turns around an steps on the pedal. Also notice no one was watching him. Another thing to consider is the doctors who did the autopsy indicated JFKs headshot for more accurate of a hand gun wound the rifle.

One more thing. Multiple people including people inside of the cars following JFKs said they smelled gun powder.
Now how can you sit through that video and seriously tell yourself that the fatal shot came from Lee Harbey Oswald, positioned BEHIND the motorocade. I'm doubtful about the driver conspiracy, but it is painfully obvious that the shot came from the front.

Demon Within

03-24-2007, 08:10 PM

Now you just making excuses. I have given evidence your giving excuses.

In your GIF I see his head along with his upper body jerk violently back. Also the back of his head later shows what is clearly an EXIT wound I.E. the "exploding" effect. This does not happen with an ENTRANCE wound which is usually slightly bigger then the acual bullet. What the hell was he using to explode the back of his head when making its entrance? A ****ing shotgun?

Your 40+ year old man theory is wrong. Its already been proven that no one, NOT ONE PERSON can duplicate what Oswald did that day. They used top pf the line snipers an they could not do it. That says something.

http://ourworld.cs.com/mikegriffith1/id87.htm

Demon Within

03-24-2007, 08:14 PM

Now how can you sit through that video and seriously tell yourself that the fatal shot came from Lee Harbey Oswald, positioned BEHIND the motorocade. I'm doubtful about the driver conspiracy, but it is painfully obvious that the shot came from the front.

Driver (http://youtube.com/watch?v=E952QoAh9pQ) go to 16 seconds into the video. Look at the drivers seat on the bottem right of the screen. If you can tell me what else that could be im all ears. Im serious.

DorkyFresh

03-24-2007, 08:22 PM

Spidey-Bat

03-24-2007, 08:22 PM

Talk about non solid evidence.

Good one. More prepared and less nervous to shoot the President of the U.S.A in broad day light with hundred of people around then a Major General sitting a a desk with no one watching. Perfectly understandable.

I am speculating because there is nothing else to base it on. You are making it sound like Oswald was out in the middle of the street and feet away from Kennedy. He was in a building that was for the most part empty and tucked away in a corner several stories above the ground. No one was looking at the buildings for him, they were looking at the motorcade.

He is the ONLY person to assassinate a public figure an deny it. Everyother assassin has admitted to doing so. Odd.
That's great, but what does it prove? Millions of people claim innocent to a charge. You really think he's any different?

Makes sense. Except for the fact his shots were something PROFESSIONAL SNIPERS dream of. He shot off 2 rounds in under 3 seconds. This was a bolt action italian rifle he had to chamber every shot. Shot>chamber>shot in under 3 seconds while reaquiring his moving target that was going away from him.

It was not 3 seconds. Penn and Teller did this test as well and proved it was possible in the amount of time most "legitimate" conspiracy theorists believe.

A bullet doesnt magically go through you it forces its way. Your sking/blood/skull and everything else "drag" the bullet or slow it down. The "exploding" effect is the bullet exiting an it along with air pressure and momentum force everything apart outwards. How again does the bullet coming from the back, that "explodes" the BACK of his head force his head and body BACKWARD toward the direction the bullet was shot? Please enlighten me.

I've already gone over this. Look at my past posts.

Dark Vigilante

03-24-2007, 08:26 PM

DorkyFresh

03-24-2007, 08:28 PM

don't waste your time, Spidey-Bat...Kennedy himself could come back in ghost form and tell them that Lee Harvey Oswald was the assassin and they still would deny it.

Demon Within

03-24-2007, 08:29 PM

it's obvious you 2 are going to think what you want to think regardless of whatever evidence is put in front of you...

...you're denying logic, reason, science, and proof. i'm done discussing this with you 2. whatever replies to my posts will be ignored by me...have a nice one.

No you make it obvious you dont want to believe anything other they what your already do. Give me evidence that supports a lone gunman did this. Iv given MULTIPLE ways in which it could not have gone down including the website I just linked. Furthermore you refuse to even comment about what the driver is doing in either links iv given you.

It was not 3 seconds. Penn and Teller did this test as well and proved it was possible in the amount of time most "legitimate" conspiracy theorists believe.

"Numerous witnesses, from all over the plaza, said that two of the shots came so closely together that they were almost simultaneous. Some witnesses even said they sounded like a single burst from an automatic rifle."

http://ourworld.cs.com/mikegriffith1/id87.htm source.

Dark Vigilante

03-24-2007, 08:32 PM

Driver (http://youtube.com/watch?v=E952QoAh9pQ) go to 16 seconds into the video. Look at the drivers seat on the bottem right of the screen. If you can tell me what else that could be im all ears. Im serious.

I couldn't make out anything. It appears that he only turned around to see what was happening. It's a bit far fetched to say that the driver did it, point blank, with a hand gun, in open day light, in front of a crowd of people. :confused:

Demon Within

03-24-2007, 08:36 PM

don't waste your time, Spidey-Bat...Kennedy himself could come back in ghost form and tell them that Lee Harvey Oswald was the assassin and they still would deny it.

You havent given ANY evidence to support your claim an the few things you have given iv easily dismissed with LOGIC like the EXIT wound being on the back of his head when by your own admission the bullet came from the BACK meaning it should be on the temple.

Or the fact that Oswald did something UNHEARD OF BY EXPERTS and that it has not been duplicated since he did it 44 years ago.

Iv even given 2 videos with exact times of a person holding a gun who seems to shoot him in the head an you have said NOTHING about what else it could be.

I applaud you for leaving its obvious you have nothing to add except "It was oswald".

Demon Within

03-24-2007, 08:37 PM

I couldn't make out anything. It appears that he only turned around to see what was happening. It's a bit far fetched to say that the driver did it, point blank, with a hand gun, in open day light, in front of a crowd of people. :confused:

Give me a way to screen capture it an ill post it in a second.

Dark Vigilante

03-24-2007, 08:38 PM

don't waste your time, Spidey-Bat...Kennedy himself could come back in ghost form and tell them that Lee Harvey Oswald was the assassin and they still would deny it.

You accuse us of being stubborn and immovable in our opinion, yet you havn't backed down either. You are as equally as bias as we are, so please don't pull the "stubborn" card. Both sides have presented very vaild, relevant, and important evidence. What we should do is analyze all the information objectively and come to our own conclusions. I'm not here to convince you, I'm here to present my case and compare it to yours, and to do the same for all those reading it.

Dark Vigilante

03-24-2007, 08:41 PM

Give me a way to screen capture it an ill post it in a second.

The 'Print Screen' button. Top right corner of the keyboard. It takes a screenshot. Paste it in paint or something and post it.

Arkady Rossovich

03-24-2007, 08:47 PM

I belive there was a plot,JFK could have been a great President for the American people.I think there might have been Governmental forces involved,but a small group..not the Government as a whole.

Demon Within

03-24-2007, 08:48 PM

http://s16.photobucket.com/albums/b50/justin2004/?action=view&current=JFK2.jpg

Let me know if you want other ones.

Demon Within

03-24-2007, 08:52 PM

Posting directly doesnt work :(

Dark Vigilante

03-24-2007, 09:01 PM

That appears to be the sun reflecting off the top of the metal beam that is attached to the windshield.

Dark Vigilante

03-24-2007, 09:03 PM

Plus, the quality of that video is inferior to most now available out there. For example, this one that you posted earler:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=xPRpfsLKink

Whatever that is, it's not visible in the higher resolution video.

Demon Within

03-24-2007, 09:05 PM

That appears to be the sun reflecting off the top of the metal beam that is attached to the windshield.

You have seen the picture an know where to look now watch the video in normal speed. You can plain as day seethe driver slow the car, turn, outstretch his arm, fire then retract his arm turn around and drive off.

Demon Within

03-24-2007, 09:08 PM

The sun is reflecting off of the gun not the metal of the car as its 2 feet from where the car metal is located.

Dark Vigilante

03-24-2007, 09:08 PM

You have seen the picture an know where to look now watch the video in normal speed. You can plain as day seethe driver slow the car, turn, outstretch his arm, fire then retract his arm turn around and drive off.

Yeah, but as I said, the quality is awful. I couldn't even make out the driver. But in higher quality versions of the Zapruder film, you can clearly make out the driver, and there is no metalc object in his hand. In fact he doesn't even put out his arm.

Demon Within

03-24-2007, 09:25 PM

Aint working

Demon Within

03-24-2007, 09:37 PM

Ok. Quality is terrible so impossible to tell I guess.

Still watching the video its clear he was shot from the front an not from the back.

Dark Vigilante

03-24-2007, 09:39 PM

I think that's pretty apparent. It seems that the bullet hit him on the side of the head, and came from in front of him.

Spidey-Bat

03-24-2007, 09:50 PM

Dark Vigilante

03-24-2007, 09:57 PM

How could it have come in from the front and out the rear? Bullets have larger exit holes than entry holes. You may not have noticed, but he's missing about a quarter of his forehead. Bullets don't leave that big an entry wound.

I said it appears to hit him on the side, and exit out the side, close to the back. Check out his autopsy photo:

http://sinoemedicalassociation.org/pathologylectures/JFK-autopsy.jpg

Now if what you're saying is correct, that exit wounds are larger than entry wounds, and then considering that there is a gaping wound near the back of Kennedy's head, where did the bullet hit him?

Spidey-Bat

03-24-2007, 10:08 PM

It looks closer to the front to me.

Dark Vigilante

03-24-2007, 10:15 PM

If exit wounds are larger then entry wounds, then clearly Kennedy was shot from the front. Heres perhaps a better angle:

http://www.jfklancer.com/photos/autopsy_slideshow/images/BE2_HI.jpg

The back of his head is completely blown out. If someone was shot in the front of the head with a high-powered rifle, this is the damage we would expect. It would be the front of his head blown out if he was shot from behind by Lee Harvey Oswald.

Heres more photos, with a few different angles to help you get a better perspective:

http://www.jfklancer.com/photos/autopsy_slideshow/index.html

heypapajinx

03-25-2007, 01:23 AM

Ok.

Anyway notice the head movement along with the blood spray. If he was shot from the back why would his head go back to the direction of the initial impact? When you get punched in the face does your head move INTO the fist an not away from it? No it doesnt.
that depends, maybe the fist has it's own gravitational field!?
ehh?
ehhhh!!?!?:yay:

Shifty

03-25-2007, 03:34 AM

I did a project on JFK back in junior high, I did plenty of research on the matter. It just seems that JFK had too many enemies and too many coincidences occurred that day for one lone nut, who defected to the Soviet Union and then returned to America, to kill the president. The president was shot on American soil, they needed to find the killer to calm the nation. You couldn't have his death go unsolved.

Whatever may have happened, the things that grab my attention are the mysterious deaths involved with the assassination.

http://www.cassiopaea.org/cass/jfkdeaths.htm

Matt

04-27-2007, 04:54 PM

Not President Kennedy, but his son, JFK Jr. I had a thought today...if he were alive today, he would likely be either in Hilary Clinton's senate seat or be the governor of New York. There is a good chance that in 2008 he would have ran for President. He would likely be the front runner. Hilary would be off everyone's radar as a former first lady who unsuccessfully tried to beat Kennedy in the primary. Obama would probably not be running but be a vice-president front runner. Hell, the entire 2008 election would probably focus on Kennedy and only Kennedy. Kind of weird to think about, huh?

GoldenAgeHero

04-27-2007, 05:21 PM

did'nt he say that he did'nt want to be in a political spotlight.

Matt

04-27-2007, 05:46 PM

did'nt he say that he did'nt want to be in a political spotlight.

Many insiders suggested he had reconsidered that stance.

Wilhelm-Scream

04-27-2007, 06:04 PM

I thought he extracted himself from George magazine and went gung ho for politics, but I think I was half dreaming while watching PBS as these ideas were formed.

It matters not, when it comes to the survival of the Kennedys, there can be only one.
He would've been killed before taking office.

jaguarr

04-27-2007, 06:05 PM

There can be only one, indeed. Teddy would have cut his head off and made a daiquiri out of it.

jag

rdh007

04-27-2007, 09:55 PM

With heart, faith and steel. In the end there can be only one.

http://www.poster.net/highlander/highlander-christopher-lambert-9912090.jpg

Dew k. Mosi

04-27-2007, 10:00 PM

If JFK Jr. were alive today, his fingers would be all pruney

StorminNorman

04-27-2007, 10:05 PM

JFK Jr./Obama ticket?

The sexiest White House ever :up:

dpm07

04-28-2007, 02:57 PM

It's too bad that he died. I think he had a lot more charisma than King George W., and would have made a better president.

blind_fury

04-28-2007, 04:05 PM

He was more of a privileged playboy than he was a progressive politician.

I don't think he had the potential to be a catalyst for change.

Darthphere

04-28-2007, 05:40 PM

Well, he doesn't have to be. He just has to get the most votes. :huh:

Showtime

04-28-2007, 05:46 PM

What if...

http://www.jfkjr.com/pic13d.jpg

President JFK Jr speaks with Former President Clinton just after the Troop Removal Bill was passed.

TEDDY

04-28-2007, 07:40 PM

There can be only one, indeed. Teddy would have cut his head off and made a daiquiri out of it.

jag

TEDDY? :huh:

Darthphere

04-28-2007, 07:44 PM

You're pathetic.

Matt

04-28-2007, 08:45 PM

He was more of a privileged playboy than he was a progressive politician.

I don't think he had the potential to be a catalyst for change.

Cause Obama has given so many policy ideas and his campaign has so much more substance than the candidate being charasmatic and black.

Darthphere

04-28-2007, 08:47 PM

Racist.

TEDDY

04-28-2007, 09:24 PM

You're pathetic.

YOU'RE PATHETIC!!!

:ninja:

Mee

04-29-2007, 12:06 AM

We can rebuild him. We have the technology!

TNC9852002

09-08-2007, 03:50 PM

^^Things like that can't go unnoticed and should not be classified as mere coincidences. That's why I think that there was a conspiracy, no matter who shot him.

-TNC

VICTORVONDOOMX

09-08-2007, 04:04 PM

How could it have come in from the front and out the rear? Bullets have larger exit holes than entry holes. You may not have noticed, but he's missing about a quarter of his forehead. Bullets don't leave that big an entry wound.Bullets do ALL manner of bizarre things that WILL make you scratch your head and wonder "How'd THAT happen." It's a real mistake to not point that out in all of the JFK "documentaries."

Did something strange happen that day? I believe so.

Will we EVER know what is was... the details...the WHY? NEVER.

Ours is a government MUCH better at killing than keeping secrets...

Ghostvirus

09-08-2007, 04:16 PM

Dimaggio did it. JFK was bangin his woman. Dimaggio had ties to the Mafia, so he had him"whacked".:o

bullets

09-08-2007, 04:20 PM

why would the govermant really want him dead ?/ what did they have to gain from it ?

VICTORVONDOOMX

09-08-2007, 04:30 PM

why would the govermant really want him dead ?/ what did they have to gain from it ?
That's the BIG MONEY question... the one with 40 years of obfuscation piled on top. If there was a single, succinct, clear answer... it's been muddled for us by now. We will NEVER know.

bullets

09-08-2007, 05:10 PM

dammit.

VICTORVONDOOMX

09-08-2007, 05:17 PM

Personally, I think it was over... aliens.

Yes, I am sober and serious, but.... Let's leave it at that.

Motown Marvel

09-08-2007, 05:51 PM

why would the govermant really want him dead ?/ what did they have to gain from it ?

vietnam.

VICTORVONDOOMX

09-08-2007, 05:52 PM

please.

ShaneHelms

09-08-2007, 06:03 PM

vietnam.

:up:

Didn't you guys watch JFK? Donald Sutherland laid it all down for us. :woot:

Excel

09-08-2007, 06:08 PM

wow; demon within i noticed the exact same thing in history class about 3 years ago.

but actually it turns out thats just part of the car; plus the would be very different had he been shot from the front.

VICTORVONDOOMX

09-08-2007, 06:15 PM

:up:

Didn't you guys watch JFK? Donald Sutherland laid it all down for us. :woot:
The old "they did it over Vietnam" argument is a bit like the 65 year-old paint huffer who tells everyone that Satan is after him for his soul. You ask "Where do you work?" disabled "What do you do to help society or yourself?" huff gas.
Why would Satan WANT him... he's GOT him. Same with the DOD and Kennedy, no matter what kind of revisionist history crackpots like Oliver Stone offer up.
:ninja:
I'm sure it's much worse than we could guess.

Excel

09-08-2007, 06:16 PM

The mob paid off the right people to get him and his brother bobby outta there.

Excel

09-08-2007, 06:17 PM

scratch that im with ya; i believec this when i first saw it and still do...who the hell is that guy in the front seat

Abaddon

09-08-2007, 06:18 PM

didn't Penn and Teller handle the whole magic bullet thing?

Carcharodon

09-08-2007, 06:31 PM

Chuck Norris built a time machine and went back in time to stop the JFK assassination. As Oswald shot, Chuck met all three bullets with his beard, deflecting them. JFK's head exploded out of sheer amazement.

blind_fury

09-08-2007, 06:46 PM

This is one of the best Charlie Rose interviews in recent memory.

I recommend the whole thing but if you want just the JFK conspiracy speculation watch the one minute intro then skip to minute 16.

http://www.charlierose.com/shows/2007/08/31/1/a-conversation-with-ted-sorensen

SuperMonkey

09-08-2007, 07:36 PM

JFK conspiracy? No
RFK conspiracy? Hell yeah.

Welcome back, TheSumOfGod

-- FunBob

Arkady Rossovich

09-08-2007, 08:22 PM

JFK was killed because of his stance on war,i heard he was killed because of big bussiness had other intentions.

blind_fury

09-08-2007, 08:30 PM

If you read some of these quotes you'll understand why JFK had to be assassinated.

http://www.quotationspage.com/quotes/John_F._Kennedy

Venom'sDad

09-08-2007, 08:54 PM

JFK was assassinated because he was about to change the world's most powerful economic system back to a Gold Standard Economy from the Oil Base Economy, which would remove America, the most powerful economic machine, from the growing one world Global Economic System. It's not ironic that he was killed in Dallas, Texas you know.

BlackLantern

09-08-2007, 08:57 PM

I think whenever a president is elected, he's bought into a dark room with some people he can't exactly see. the new president is then shown footage of the JFK assassination from an angle no one's ever see before.....he is then told what his agenda is for the next 4 years....

Hotwire

09-08-2007, 09:02 PM

BlackLantern

09-08-2007, 09:05 PM

If this is the case, then how do you explain the results we've gotten with Bush?

it's about balance....can't have great times constantly....if you want to control the masses...you have to show them how great things can be.....and also how sucktacular things can be.....Clinton had a great 8 years.....so let Bush hose it up so the next President can be lauded as the "fixer" of Bush's mistakes....

Abaddon

09-08-2007, 09:12 PM

SuperMonkey

09-08-2007, 09:14 PM

Plaigurism! :cmad:

-- FunBob

BlackLantern

09-08-2007, 09:17 PM

Pardon me for stealing from one of the greatest voices of our time Bill Hicks....that's where its from

Abaddon

09-08-2007, 09:20 PM

I'm a little disappointed.

BlackLantern

09-08-2007, 09:23 PM

at least I can admit it....I always thought it was a sound theory

blackcobra

01-04-2008, 05:48 AM

He's a conspiracy theorist:) In his own words.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-kX0sLFXR0Q

Wilhelm-Scream

01-04-2008, 10:58 AM

He wasn't the only "crack pot, nut job, whack-O Conspiracy Freak" - President.

"I am a most unhappy man. I have unwittingly ruined my country.
A great industrial nation is controlled by its system of credit.
Our system of credit is concentrated. The growth of the nation,
therefore, and all our activities are in the hands of a few men.
We have come to be one of the worst ruled, one of the most completely
controlled and dominated governments in the civilized world.No longer a government by free opinion, no longer a government by
conviction and the vote of the majority, but a government by
the opinion and duress of a small group of dominant men."

"The government, which was designed for the people, has got into the hands of the bosses and their employers, the special interests. An invisible empire has been set up above the forms of democracy."

-Woodrow Wilson

"The real truth of the matter is, as you and I know, that a financial element in the large centers has owned the government of the U.S. since the days of Andrew Jackson."

"In politics, nothing happens by accident. If it happened, you can bet it was planned that way."

- Franklin D. Roosevelt

"It is not my intention to doubt that the doctrine of the Illuminati and the principles of Jacobinism had not spread in the United States. On the contrary, no one is more satisfied of this fact than I am.. The idea that I meant to convey, was, that I did not believe that the Lodges of Free Masons in this Country had, as Societies, endeavoured to propagate the diabolical tenets of the first, or pernicious principles of the latter (if they are susceptible of seperation). That Individuals of them may have done it, or that the founder, or instrument employed to found, the Democratic Societies in the United States, may have had these objects; and actually had a seperation of the People from their Government in view, is too evident to be questioned."

-George Washington

But hey, I'm sure Shadowboxing and his ilk are way more "in-the-know" about the realities of government than a bunch of old fuddy-duddy presidents from decades ago.

:o

GoldenAgeHero

01-04-2008, 11:09 AM

interesting...wait george washington? i find his quote suspect.

chamber-music

01-04-2008, 11:21 AM

black cobra needs to talk to rabyia.

Immortalfire

01-04-2008, 11:23 AM

Let me guess...Gozer worshipers.

ShadowBoxing

01-04-2008, 11:56 AM

But hey, I'm sure Shadowboxing and his ilk are way more "in-the-know" about the realities of government than a bunch of old fuddy-duddy presidents from decades ago.

:o
Or ya'know I could simply go get the context of the quotes rather than posting a bunch of haphazard random phrases and putting your own uninformed spin on them, but hey, why ruin your fun?

Apollo

01-04-2008, 12:00 PM

damnit, just when i thought i moved on with my life...they pull me back in!!:cmad:

maybe i was just born to believe in conspiracy's :csad:

Wilhelm-Scream

01-04-2008, 12:10 PM

Or ya'know I could simply go get the context of the quotes rather than posting a bunch of haphazard random phrases and putting your own uninformed spin on them, but hey, why ruin your fun?lol, dude, there are times when the context can change the apparent meaning.

These:

"I am a most unhappy man. I have unwittingly ruined my country.
A great industrial nation is controlled by its system of credit.
Our system of credit is concentrated. The growth of the nation,
therefore, and all our activities are in the hands of a few men.
We have come to be one of the worst ruled, one of the most completely
controlled and dominated governments in the civilized world.No longer a government by free opinion, no longer a government by
conviction and the vote of the majority, but a government by
the opinion and duress of a small group of dominant men."

"The real truth of the matter is, as you and I know, that a financial element in the large centers has owned the government of the U.S. since the days of Andrew Jackson."

are not such quotes.
Please, ruin my fun!
Show me the true meaning of:

"a government by
the opinion and duress of a small group of dominant men"

and

"The real truth of the matter is, as you and I know, that a financial element in the large centers has owned the government of the U.S."

Maybe it was a fireside chat.
FDR was actually reading a line from Mutt & Jeff.
:whatever:

ShadowBoxing

01-04-2008, 12:20 PM

lol, dude, there are times when the context can change the apparent meaning.

These:

"I am a most unhappy man. I have unwittingly ruined my country.
A great industrial nation is controlled by its system of credit.
Our system of credit is concentrated. The growth of the nation,
therefore, and all our activities are in the hands of a few men.
We have come to be one of the worst ruled, one of the most completely
controlled and dominated governments in the civilized world.No longer a government by free opinion, no longer a government by
conviction and the vote of the majority, but a government by
the opinion and duress of a small group of dominant men."

"The real truth of the matter is, as you and I know, that a financial element in the large centers has owned the government of the U.S. since the days of Andrew Jackson."

are not such quotes.
Please, ruin my fun!
Show me the true meaning of:

"a government by
the opinion and duress of a small group of dominant men"

and

"The real truth of the matter is, as you and I know, that a financial element in the large centers has owned the government of the U.S."

Maybe it was a fireside chat.
FDR was actually reading a line from Mutt & Jeff.
:whatever:
Or maybe something simplier. Like when he was giving the speech, under what conditions, to whom, what the overall theme of the article/speech/interview was. Perhaps, at least on these FDR ones, consider the fact that FDR is talking about financial centers being the President who got us out of the great depression. With Wilson, of course, he was a trustbuster, taking after T.Roosevelt, wielding even a bigger stick than he. None, of these quotes are actually alarming to me in the slightest, because, well I realize they are more than just errant thoughts floating in n-space.

The irony is, Wilhelm, I knew Christians, evangelicals, who used to gingerly write down Biblical quotes said by pastors...and I always thought how funny it was that they didn't know what they meant. You are a mirror image of them, just on the otherside.