JFK - Beyond Conspiracy.

alanbb

Has anyone else seen this "documentary"?

I recently obtained a DVD copy from a friend of mine, and I also believe it's on Youtube for all to see.
Based mainly on Gerald Posner's book - "Case Closed", it claims to show definitive proof that Oswald was the lone assassin involved. Full of bogus facts and choosing to either misrepresent of blatantly ignore evidence, to be honest it really p*ssed me off to the extent that I was practically shouting at the TV screen while watching it! (Gave the wife a good laugh, that.)

Anybody else seen it, or even agree with it's findings?

Diogenes

alanbb wrote: »

Has anyone else seen this "documentary"?

I recently obtained a DVD copy from a friend of mine, and I also believe it's on Youtube for all to see.
Based mainly on Gerald Posner's book - "Case Closed", it claims to show definitive proof that Oswald was the lone assassin involved. Full of bogus facts and choosing to either misrepresent of blatantly ignore evidence, to be honest it really p*ssed me off to the extent that I was practically shouting at the TV screen while watching it! (Gave the wife a good laugh, that.)

Anybody else seen it, or even agree with it's findings?

If it concludes with the fact that JFK was murdered by Lee Harvey Oswald, who acted alone, I'd agree with it's findings.

alanbb

Diogenes wrote: »

If it concludes with the fact that JFK was murdered by Lee Harvey Oswald, who acted alone, I'd agree with it's findings.

Ha!

Even though the program (and book) ignored vital evidence to "prove" it's 3 shot THEORY?

lolwut

alanbb wrote: »

Has anyone else seen this "documentary"?

I recently obtained a DVD copy from a friend of mine, and I also believe it's on Youtube for all to see.
Based mainly on Gerald Posner's book - "Case Closed", it claims to show definitive proof that Oswald was the lone assassin involved. Full of bogus facts and choosing to either misrepresent of blatantly ignore evidence, to be honest it really p*ssed me off to the extent that I was practically shouting at the TV screen while watching it! (Gave the wife a good laugh, that.)

Anybody else seen it, or even agree with it's findings?

What you must understand is that 99% of Docs shown on television are disinfo
Be it with JFK, Aliens/UFO's , Ghosts etc..
And it makes you think, If there REALLY is nothing to it like "sane" people say, Why do they (and by they i mean the producers of the docs) ignore and hide so much facts and evidence?

alanbb

lolwut wrote: »

What you must understand is that 99% of Docs shown on television are disinfo
Be it with JFK, Aliens/UFO's , Ghosts etc..
And it makes you think, If there REALLY is nothing to it like "sane" people say, Why do they (and by they i mean the producers of the docs) ignore and hide so much facts and evidence?

Excellent point. Could'nt have put it better myself.

Diogenes

alanbb wrote: »

Ha!

Even though the program (and book) ignored vital evidence to "prove" it's 3 shot THEORY?

Evidence like....

lolwut

And you know they are really good at it too
Like a recent UFO doc they shown on channel 4 , Every time they showed a reenactmentof aUFO sighting with all their fancy CGI
They would leave out the part where the Witnesses would say whatever they saw was silent, and put a nice loud jet engine soundbite in the reconstruction so your mind click "Oh it was just a plane"

You know, Subtle things like that are how they do it, Really pisses me off

Diogenes

lolwut wrote: »

What you must understand is that 99% of Docs shown on television are disinfo
Be it with JFK, Aliens/UFO's , Ghosts etc..
And it makes you think, If there REALLY is nothing to it like "sane" people say, Why do they (and by they i mean the producers of the docs) ignore and hide so much facts and evidence?

Where as youtube and google video have rigid fact checking standards.

And I've worked in documentary editing, you couldn't point out one of these completely fake documentatries, and how you know this to be true?

meglome

alanbb wrote: »

Has anyone else seen this "documentary"?

I recently obtained a DVD copy from a friend of mine, and I also believe it's on Youtube for all to see.
Based mainly on Gerald Posner's book - "Case Closed", it claims to show definitive proof that Oswald was the lone assassin involved. Full of bogus facts and choosing to either misrepresent of blatantly ignore evidence, to be honest it really p*ssed me off to the extent that I was practically shouting at the TV screen while watching it! (Gave the wife a good laugh, that.)

Anybody else seen it, or even agree with it's findings?

Didn't see it. Although your reaction is often how I get when I'm watching CT's videos.

Discovery Channel had a very good documentary on recently about JFK. They actually brought in a world renowned British marksman to Dealey Plaza and used a match of the original car. They tried all the positions that other assassins were supposed to be placed and it was impossible or basically impossible to make a shot. The only place they were able to copy the shots from was the exact place that Oswald was positioned in the book depository. It was called JFK: Inside the target car.

Also there was a computer simulation done few years back (can't find the link) of all the video, audio and pictures. They also found nothing that didn't fit into the official version.

I remember as a kid talking with my friends about JFK and how it was a big conspiracy. I was kinda disappointed when I discovered if you look at it properly there really isn't one.

lolwut

Diogenes wrote: »

Where as youtube and google video have rigid fact checking standards.

And I've worked in documentary editing, you couldn't point out one of these completely fake documentatries, and how you know this to be true?

Actually most docs. on the net have very good sources and NAME their sources , Docs on television don't need to name anything because "since its on television , it must be true!"
:rolleyes:

Diogenes

lolwut wrote: »

Actually most docs. on the net have very good sources and NAME their sources , Docs on television don't need to name anything because "since its on television , it must be true!"
:rolleyes:

I can list off a dozen 9/11 and 7/7 internet conspiracy theory videos that are a tissue of lies, posted by anonymous, or next to anonymous people. Meanwhile if a TV company makes something up, you have someone who can be sued.

meglome

lolwut wrote: »

What you must understand is that 99% of Docs shown on television are disinfo
Be it with JFK, Aliens/UFO's , Ghosts etc..
And it makes you think, If there REALLY is nothing to it like "sane" people say, Why do they (and by they i mean the producers of the docs) ignore and hide so much facts and evidence?

So if I get this straight anything that doesn't fit with your preconceived beliefs is disinfo? How do you distinguish disnfo from fact?

The term disinfo annoys me and makes me laugh in equal measure. CT sites are full of misrepresentations, misquotes and things that are simply made up but somehow we're supposed to believe it, blindly. Personally I check it no matter who tells me, like say a sceptic should.

lolwut

Diogenes wrote: »

I can list off a dozen 9/11 and 7/7 internet conspiracy theory videos that are a tissue of lies, posted by anonymous, or next to anonymous people. Meanwhile if a TV company makes something up, you have someone who can be sued.

Fair enough , But that's the beauty of the Internet
Anything can post anything they want , Credible or not
Where as TV stations broadcast under the guise of "We go to X place to find if Y is real" but they might as well call it "We pull facts out of our arses and provide them as hard evidence because we know no one is going to question it"
I.e they introduce some BS person with some degrees , film him saying stuff they want him to say and then gtfo

Basically , Any doc about anything paranormal or conspiracy related from channel 4, History channel ,National GEO. sky one and ESPECIALLY the BBC are 100% Disinformation

At least with the Internet you can get debunking docs like lolloosechange that have half credible facts

meglome

lolwut wrote: »

Basically , Any doc about anything paranormal or conspiracy related from channel 4, History channel ,National GEO. sky one and ESPECIALLY the BBC are 100% Disinformation

And how exactly did you reach this enlightened position?

lolwut wrote: »

At least with the Internet you can get debunking docs like lolloosechange that have half credible facts

Or perhaps screw loose change which shows the many (and there are many) problems with loose change.

prinz

lolwut wrote: »

Basically , Any doc about anything paranormal or conspiracy related from channel 4, History channel ,National GEO. sky one and ESPECIALLY the BBC are 100% Disinformation

Riiiiiiiiiiiiiight. And I suppose any 'doc' which backs whatever theory you have is telling the truth and 100% trustworthy. It's attitudes like that which make it harder for people who actually do come across a conspiracy to come forward. They generally don't want to associate themselves with people who believe that kind of thing.

lolwut

meglome wrote: »

And how exactly did you reach this enlightened position?



Or perhaps screw loose change which shows the many (and there are many) problems with loose change.

Have you ever seen any of those docs? I mean really
All they do is manipulate eye witness testimonies and twist actual events of whatever that are covering
If they come out with the outcome of "this cant be explained" they always leave it on a note of "It could be anything , But we're going to tell you its swamp gas, lanterns, the wind, northern lights etc... ( focusing on UFO docs here) When it could really be anything you cant lean towards anything , particularly in a documentary where you're supposed to be unbiased


Or perhaps screw loose change which shows the many (and there are many) problems with loose change.[/quote]

I have not seen it , I will admit Loose Change does have allot of problems with it , However the official 9/11 story has more
Look , im not some sort of CT nut who believes anything , I look at both sides of everything and everything i say , i say as my opinion , not as fact(Well except the disinfo thing)

Diogenes

lolwut wrote: »

Fair enough , But that's the beauty of the Internet
Anything can post anything they want , Credible or not
Where as TV stations broadcast under the guise of "We go to X place to find if Y is real" but they might as well call it "We pull facts out of our arses and provide them as hard evidence because we know no one is going to question it"
I.e they introduce some BS person with some degrees , film him saying stuff they want him to say and then gtfo

Basically , Any doc about anything paranormal or conspiracy related from channel 4, History channel ,National GEO. sky one and ESPECIALLY the BBC are 100% Disinformation

At least with the Internet you can get debunking docs like lolloosechange that have half credible facts

lets take the BBC one first. Name one piece of "Disinfo" in any of the recent BBC conspiracy files series.

humanji

Personally, I wouldn't go off claiming it was all disinfo, but more a case of making things sound more dramatic to gain more viewers. People watch tv for entertainment, and if a show isn't entertaining, then people just won't watch it. It all comes back to money.

lolwut

Diogenes wrote: »

lets take the BBC one first. Name one piece of "Disinfo" in any of the recent BBC conspiracy files series.

The Conspiracy Files: 7/7
Rachel 'North' (She used a fake 2nd name for the show) Rambling on about how the UK 'Government faked 7/7' Excellent manipulation , Putting it as they only used 7/7 as an excuse rather than Did it themselves

Many times during the show they show the Video of the 'bombers' entering the trains and quoting the times, The times they quote are the wrong times according to the train time table

They say how the bombers blew themselves up , Yet pictures from inside the train showing forensic detectives look for clues show the blast came from under the carriage

Need i go on ?

alanbb

Diogenes wrote: »

Evidence like....

Ok...

1) The bystander (James Tague) who was knicked by a richochet while standing by the triple overpass ahead of the motorcade. A bullet struck the curb a few feet in front of him and either fragments of the bullet or of the cement struck him. This was completley omitted.

2) They went into great detail to illustrate how JFK and Governor John Connally were positioned in the car in order to prove how a bullet fired from the book depository COULD supposedly hit both Kennedy and Connally.
I have no problem with this, after all, nobody can be certain about their positions. BUT I have a huge problem with the fact that Connally stated categorically that he WAS NOT hit at the same time as the president. He swore this until the day he died. He turned to look at the president after the first shot hit him and WAS IN THE PROCESS OF TURNING BACK around to face forward when he felt the impact of the bullet that hit HIM. Also omitted from the program.

3) The dictafone recording of he assassination... this was made by the two-way radio on one of the police patrol bikes in the motorcade (it was accidentally left on). Audio experts detected the sound of 5 gunshots on the recording. The program dismisses this evidence because they say the police bike was not in the original position it was though to be in at the time of the shooting. Fair enough... but if the recording is invalid, then why do th gunshots synchronise perfectly with the timing of the shots on the Zapruder film?

Black Swan

Because Lee Harvey Oswald was shot by Jack Ruby shortly after the JFK assassination, and before Oswald could be interrogated by the FBI, there will always be grounds for a conspiracy theory that goes beyond the single gunman operating on his own.

alanbb

Blue_Lagoon wrote: »

Because Lee Harvey Oswald was shot by Jack Ruby shortly after the JFK assassination, and before Oswald could be interrogated by the FBI, there will always be grounds for a conspiracy theory that goes beyond the single gunman operating on his own.

I think it's a little more complicated than that.....

humanji

alanbb wrote: »

I think it's a little more complicated than that.....

But that's all that's needed to propogate the conspiracy. The key players are dead, so all that is left is pretty much hearsay and conjecture. The full details will never be fully proven one way or another.

Lone Stone

Wasnt he killed shortly after making this speach

He was murdered for trying to warn us about the nwo

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OeCXu_rTS4I

Diogenes

lolwut wrote: »

The Conspiracy Files: 7/7
Rachel 'North' (She used a fake 2nd name for the show) Rambling on about how the UK 'Government faked 7/7' Excellent manipulation , Putting it as they only used 7/7 as an excuse rather than Did it themselves

Why would she make such an elementary mistake as using a different name on different documentaries?

There's also a small problem, I know Rachel. I've met her on several social occasions. I can remember her first post on urban75.net when she described her reaction to the bombs. She's changed her name? Really? I'm sure you can provide evidence of that, and y'know she's gotten married since the bombings.

Many times during the show they show the Video of the 'bombers' entering the trains and quoting the times, The times they quote are the wrong times according to the train time table

And they explain this. As anyone who has ever travelled on a UK train know's the timetables bear little resemblance to reality.

They say how the bombers blew themselves up , Yet pictures from inside the train showing forensic detectives look for clues show the blast came from under the carriage

Need i go on ?

Yes yes you do. Please provide these pictures and quotes from forensic scientists to support your claim. I think you'll find that the reports about the bomb coming from under the train came from a single reporter from the Guardian who spoke to one or two eyewitnesses and phoned in the report, and he went on to write a lengthy rebuttal in the paper disputing the theory.

Diogenes

alanbb wrote: »

Ok...

1) The bystander (James Tague) who was knicked by a richochet while standing by the triple overpass ahead of the motorcade. A bullet struck the curb a few feet in front of him and either fragments of the bullet or of the cement struck him. This was completley omitted.

From the documentary? Not from Vincent Bugliosi's book "reclaiming history" If you want the definitive JFK assassination book please read this.

2) They went into great detail to illustrate how JFK and Governor John Connally were positioned in the car in order to prove how a bullet fired from the book depository COULD supposedly hit both Kennedy and Connally.
I have no problem with this, after all, nobody can be certain about their positions. BUT I have a huge problem with the fact that Connally stated categorically that he WAS NOT hit at the same time as the president. He swore this until the day he died. He turned to look at the president after the first shot hit him and WAS IN THE PROCESS OF TURNING BACK around to face forward when he felt the impact of the bullet that hit HIM. Also omitted from the program.

Source please.

3) The dictafone recording of he assassination... this was made by the two-way radio on one of the police patrol bikes in the motorcade (it was accidentally left on). Audio experts detected the sound of 5 gunshots on the recording. The program dismisses this evidence because they say the police bike was not in the original position it was though to be in at the time of the shooting. Fair enough... but if the recording is invalid, then why do th gunshots synchronise perfectly with the timing of the shots on the Zapruder film?

There's an excellent debunking of this nonsense.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=3813555

barabbas

The documentaries shown recently are propaganda aimed at the general public and correctly assume very little to no knowledge of the most basic facts of the assassination.

From the point of view of the documentaries Inside the Target Car and Beyond Conspiracy: JFK they both concentrate on trying to prove the single bullet theory. The reason for this is because the whole case for the government version of events rests on proving the single bullet theory to be true. Unfortunately for the government this has proved impossible because it simply can not happen in the real world and their attempts at explaining it are laughable. The best the government could come up with was the controversial, single bullet theory.

(it's worth bearing in mind that nobody, not the government, not the BBC, not the discovery channel, has ever offered a logical explanation as to how one bullet could cause all seven wounds to both kennedy and connally. you see in order to prove the single bullet theory to be true you have to account for all seven wounds; two to kennedy and five to connally that this magic bullet supposedly caused.)

to understand why the discovery channel documentaries are misleading you must first know all the facts concerning the injures to both kennedy and connally as established by the warren commission and the zapruder film.

Kennedy sustained three wounds.
wound 1 - was to the presidents back 5 3/4" below the collar
wound 2 - was to the neck generally known as the tie knot wound.
wound 3 - was the head shot.

Governor Connally sustained five wounds.
Wound 1- An entry wound to the back located slightly to the left of the governors right armpit.
Wound 2 - was an exit wound to connally's chest, just below the right nipple shattering his fifth rib.
Wound 3 - enters connallys right wrist
Wound 4 - exits connallys right wrist shattering it
Wound 5 - a bullet wound in his left thigh located approximately 5 inches above the knee.

from the Warren Commission Report: Governor Connally sustained bullet wounds in his back, the right side of his chest, right wrist, and left thigh.


The first shot missed established by zapruder frame 160 and by the warren commission report which says ' Governor Connally testified that he recognized the first noise as a rifle shot and the thought immediately crossed his mind that it was an assassination attempt. From his position in the right jump seat immediately in front of the President, he instinctively turned to his right because the shot appeared to come from over his right shoulder.'

We know the third shot was the head shot that killed the president. So now that leaves one bullet to account for all seven wounds to Kennedy and connally.

Both the BBC and Discovery channel fail to explain all the wounds to both men satisfactorily, in fact they dont even mention connallys wrist or thigh wound in either program. Why? Because they cant explain it without introducing a second rifleman. it's simply impossible for what they claim to have happened to have happened. If its so obvious that oswald acted alone surely it's very easy to account for all the wounds to both men without having to resort to crazy theories like the governments magic bullet scenario.

Mainstream media is not the place where you will find the truth about anything of any importance, it's main function is to mislead you. It is a propaganda tool and an essential arm of government and a very powerful one at that.

"The American people should be made aware of the trend toward monopolization of the great public information vehicles and the concentration of more and more power over public opinion in fewer and fewer hands."
Spiro Agnew
U. S. Vice-President
13 November 1969

"The Central Intelligence Agency owns everyone of any significance in the major media.'
William Colby
former Director of the CIA
in Derailing Democracy: The America the Media Don’t Want You to See (2000), by Dave McGowan


"A newspaper has three things to do. One is to amuse, another is to entertain and the rest is to mislead."
Ernest Bevin
British Foreign Minister
at London Conference of Foreign Ministers, 10 Feb. 1946, quoted in The Barnes Review, vol. 5, no. 3 (Washington D.C.: TBR Co., May/June 1999), p. 29


"Any dictator would admire the uniformity and obedience of the [U.S.] media."

Noam Chomsky
Institute Professor Emeritus of Linguistics
at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology

Diogenes

The "Magic Bullet Theory" Is the best example of strawman in the 20th century. No one claims the official story is the "magic bullet theory" aside from conspiracy theorist.

http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=-5933278137045380376&ei=9JN5SufGFZHo-Qbk2LS9DA&q=single+bullet+jfk&hl=en&client=firefox-a

Is the computer analysis of the bullet's trajectory.

The first shot missed. The 2nd hit Kennedy in his upper back, penetrated his neck, and exited his throat those are the first two of Kennedys wounds, they are exit and entry wounds. The same bullet penetrated Governor Connelly's back, then exited his chest, before going through to hit his right wrist, and finally his left thigh in that order, as the above video explains. The Final shot penetrated the Upper right side of Kennedy's skull. Those are your seven wounds. 6 of which are the entry and exit wounds of a single bullet travelling at high velocity.

You're completely misrepresenting the facts, and no amount of misconstruing Chomsky alters that.

WillieCocker

It was Sinatra, that rat fcuk!!!!

barabbas

The video you mention dose not show or explain connallys wrist or thigh wound in fact he never even mentions them, surely if he could explain all the wounds he would go through them one by one explaining the full trajectory of the bullet and all the wounds it inflicted. thats deliberate he knows the average viewer will not be familiar with all the wounds to both men.

The single bullet theory was presented by the warren commission. Warren Commission Exhibit 399. This explanation was put forth by the government no conspiracy theorist came up with this explanation. It was authored by one Arlen Spector an assistant district attorney at the time.

Diogenes

barabbas wrote: »

The video you mention dose not show or explain connallys wrist or thigh wound in fact he never even mentions them, surely if he could explain all the wounds he would go through them one by one explaining the full trajectory of the bullet and all the wounds it inflicted. thats deliberate he knows the average viewer will not be familiar with all the wounds to both men.

Thats just an exert. I would have thought someone familiar with all wounds of JFK and Connelly could work out the bullets trajectory. But hey? Not happy?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DSBXW1-VGmM

Here's a ten minute clip that explains it in greater length, and he goes into the wounds.

Implying the man is a liar is pretty poor form.

barabbas

He still dose not mention connallys wrist or thigh wound, he starts with the wound to Kennedy back then mentions the neck wound, he then points out the entry wound to connallys back and the exit wound in the chest and stops there. why not continue on there are more wounds to explain than just the four he mentions, you see he cant mention the remaining wounds, the reason he cant mention them is because he's come up against the same problem as the Warren Commission did ie. you cant explain the unexplainable. and if you cant account for all the wounds to both men witch he hasn't, you have to ask yourself why? why can he not explain all the wounds? why dose he not even mention them? the truth is always very simple and the more you examine it the stronger it gets, because it's the truth. Lie's on the other hand begin to fall apart the closer you look, they cant stand up to scrutiny, because there lie's. If he cant explain all the wounds then his explanation is useless. when the answer raises more questions that the question itself you know somethings wrong.

Diogenes

barabbas wrote: »

He still dose not mention connallys wrist or thigh wound, he starts with the wound to Kennedy back then mentions the neck wound, he then points out the entry wound to connallys back and the exit wound in the chest and stops there. why not continue on there are more wounds to explain than just the four he mentions, you see he cant mention the remaining wounds, the reason he cant mention them is because he's come up against the same problem as the Warren Commission did ie. you cant explain the unexplainable. and if you cant account for all the wounds to both men witch he hasn't, you have to ask yourself why? why can he not explain all the wounds? why dose he not even mention them? the truth is always very simple and the more you examine it the stronger it gets, because it's the truth. Lie's on the other hand begin to fall apart the closer you look, they cant stand up to scrutiny, because there lie's. If he cant explain all the wounds then his explanation is useless. when the answer raises more questions that the question itself you know somethings wrong.

No he's focused on the bullet's trajectory, the bullet continued on it's journey through Connelly's wrist, and into his thigh.

I take it you now accept that two bullets could cause four out of the seven injuries. The Bullets trajectory could easily have gone through Connelly's arm and then into his thigh. Do you dispute this?

barabbas

Diogenes wrote: »

No he's focused on the bullet's trajectory, the bullet continued on it's journey through Connelly's wrist, and into his thigh.

That is simply an assumption on your part and an assumption that you have been lead to through propaganda technique. That's the thing about good propaganda and disinfo it leads you to your conclusions. In propaganda its important what you say but it's more important what you leave out. He never mentions those wounds he leaves you the viewer to come to that conclusion "all by yourself", and that is assuming that your even aware of those wounds witch the average viewer is not. these guys in TV land are very good at psychological warfare they know you better than you know yourself.

Diogenes wrote: »

I take it you now accept that two bullets could cause four out of the seven injuries. The Bullets trajectory could easily have gone through Connelly's arm and then into his thigh. Do you dispute this?

Again your making an assumption. I never said that I accept that two bullets could cause four out of the seven injuries. I was simply walking through the explanation in the video link you provided. However, do i think it's possible? Yes it's possible but highly unlikely that a single bullet caused four wounds two to kennedy and two to connally, and that is only if you accept that the neck wound is an exit wound, witch i dont, but thats a hole other argument. But then you have another problem, your left with connallys wrist wound and thigh wound still to explain. If we go with the government explanation that after passing through connallys torso it continued on and shattered his right wrist and then into his left thigh, the logical conclusion of this is that we will fine the badly damaged bullet in connallys thigh, right? wrong. It's found in pristine condition on a stretcher in parkland hospital, and later submitted by the warren commission as exhibit CE339 http://www.archives.gov/research/jfk/warren-commission-report/chapter-3.html#bullet

Diogenes

barabbas wrote: »

That is simply an assumption on your part and an assumption that you have been lead to through propaganda technique. That's the thing about good propaganda and disinfo it leads you to your conclusions. In propaganda its important what you say but it's more important what you leave out. He never mentions those wounds he leaves you the viewer to come to that conclusion "all by yourself", and that is assuming that your even aware of those wounds witch the average viewer is not. these guys in TV land are very good at psychological warfare they know you better than you know yourself.

Yeah the whole program is out there on internet, you can find it yourself. It discusses his wounds.

Again your making an assumption. I never said that I accept that two bullets could cause four out of the seven injuries. I was simply walking through the explanation in the video link you provided. However, do i think it's possible? Yes it's possible but highly unlikely that a single bullet caused four wounds two to kennedy and two to connally,

Why is it highly unlikely?

and that is only if you accept that the neck wound is an exit wound, witch i dont, but thats a hole other argument.

Why is it a "whole" other argument? If it is an entry wound the only way it could have entered Kennedy is through Connelly. Since the trajectory of the bullets (Kennedy's upper back, neck, the rib cage of Connelly, exiting his lower back through his lung.) If Kennedy's neck wound was the same bullet that injured Connally it would mean the gunman was below Connally.

Which doesn't make a wit of sense.

But then you have another problem, your left with connallys wrist wound and thigh wound still to explain. If we go with the government explanation that after passing through connallys torso it continued on and shattered his right wrist and then into his left thigh, the logical conclusion of this is that we will fine the badly damaged bullet in connallys thigh, right? wrong. It's found in pristine condition on a stretcher in parkland hospital, and later submitted by the warren commission as exhibit CE339 http://www.archives.gov/research/jfk/warren-commission-report/chapter-3.html#bullet

And here's a similar bullet fired at a corpse's wrist at the same speed.

alanbb

Diogenes wrote: »

Source please?

The man himself, Governor Connally.

Watch these interviews...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I3-lZNR_yAc
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iM-q2YOsbrc&feature=related

alanbb

Diogenes wrote: »

Implying the man is a liar is pretty poor form.

I would just say he is enthusiastic about his own cgi work.

If JFK's throat wound and Connally's wound(s) did not occur at the same time, the whole theory just falls flat on it's face.

Diogenes

alanbb wrote: »

The man himself, Governor Connally.

Watch these interviews...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I3-lZNR_yAc
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iM-q2YOsbrc&feature=related

Nothing in either clip supports your assertion. Remember you said

BUT I have a huge problem with the fact that Connally stated categorically that he WAS NOT hit at the same time as the president.

He doesn't say in either clip that he was not hit at the same time as the president never mind categorically stating it, and it's completely dishonest of you to present either clip as supporting your claim.

If JFK's throat wound and Connally's wound(s) did not occur at the same time, the whole theory just falls flat on it's face.

In both clips, Connally talks of three shots. The first shot missed he was struck by the 2nd shot which passed through Kennedy and through Connally twice, before ending up in his thigh, and the third shot which he states did not hit him, and concurs with the official story that it struck and was embedded in Kennedy's skull.

You're making my case for me.

barabbas

Diogenes wrote: »

And here's a similar bullet fired at a corpse's wrist at the same speed.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OV5d4p4FKsY

Remember the bullet is supposed to have passed through Kennedy and connally, breaking connallys rib shattering his wrist and entering his thigh, plus the bullet is never found in his thigh where it should be if we believe what the government says.

meglome

barabbas wrote: »

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OV5d4p4FKsY

Remember the bullet is supposed to have passed through Kennedy and connally, breaking connallys rib shattering his wrist and entering his thigh, plus the bullet is never found in his thigh where it should be if we believe what the government says.

So given that in the recent Discovery documentary they could only make a shot from above and behind, exactly where Oswald was positioned, how do you explain where the bullet that hit Connally came from?

meglome

alanbb wrote: »

I would just say he is enthusiastic about his own cgi work.

If JFK's throat wound and Connally's wound(s) did not occur at the same time, the whole theory just falls flat on it's face.

He using science to come to a conclusion rather that wild speculation. He showing exactly why they did happen at the same time. I personally can't see how you can shoot Connally when Kennedy is in the way unless it passes through Kennedy.

barabbas

meglome wrote: »

So given that in the recent Discovery documentary they could only make a shot from above and behind, exactly where Oswald was positioned, how do you explain where the bullet that hit Connally came from?

If your knowledge of the Kennedy assassination is derived from a discovery channel documentary theirs no point in wasting my time trying to convince you of anything other than the conclusions they gave you.

"It would never come into their heads to fabricate colossal untruths, and they would not believe that others could have the impudence to distort the truth so infamously. Even though the facts which prove this to be so may be brought clearly to their minds, they will still doubt and waver and will continue to think that there may be some other explanation. For the grossly impudent lie always leaves traces behind it, even after it has been nailed down, a fact which is known to all expert liars in this world and to all who conspire together in the art of lying."

—Adolf Hitler , Mein Kampf, vol. I, ch. X

Diogenes

barabbas wrote: »

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OV5d4p4FKsY

Remember the bullet is supposed to have passed through Kennedy and connally, breaking connallys rib shattering his wrist and entering his thigh, plus the bullet is never found in his thigh where it should be if we believe what the government says.

Entering and exiting Kennedy through soft tissue. It's also incredibly easy to break a rib, a surprisingly small amount of effort is necessary.

Diogenes

barabbas wrote: »

If your knowledge of the Kennedy assassination is derived from a discovery channel documentary theirs no point in wasting my time trying to convince you of anything other than the conclusions they gave you.

Please spare us the patronising dismission. Why don't you list off all the facts you think the discovery channel missed. And address the problems with your claim that the bullet to Kennedy's neck was an entry wound.

"It would never come into their heads to fabricate colossal untruths, and they would not believe that others could have the impudence to distort the truth so infamously. Even though the facts which prove this to be so may be brought clearly to their minds, they will still doubt and waver and will continue to think that there may be some other explanation. For the grossly impudent lie always leaves traces behind it, even after it has been nailed down, a fact which is known to all expert liars in this world and to all who conspire together in the art of lying."

—Adolf Hitler , Mein Kampf, vol. I, ch. X

Could you please quit with the off topic irrevelent quotes. Discuss the matter at hand before starting into the "Wit and Wisdom of Adolf Hitler".

barabbas

Diogenes wrote: »

Entering and exiting Kennedy through soft tissue. It's also incredibly easy to break a rib, a surprisingly small amount of effort is necessary.

As the video shows, the bullet should reflect the damage it inflicted, which it clearly did not. Can you explain why the bullet is remarkably undamaged? and can you further explain why it was not recovered from Connolly's thigh where if you use logic it should be? and you still have not shown me where they show all the wound's in any documentary in any video that you have pointed me to.

uprising

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XY02Qkuc_f8

Watch the secret service men being stood down, when they should have been protectng JFK.

barabbas

Diogenes wrote: »

Could you please quit with the off topic irrevelent quotes. Discuss the matter at hand before starting into the "Wit and Wisdom of Adolf Hitler".

Hitler was many things but stupid wasn't one of them. He managed to take control of the minds of one of the most economically advanced nations on the planet at the time. I think he new a thing or to about making you believe lies.

And it's relevant to the discussion because it shows that it's possible to convince people that lie's are the truth even though they make no sense. which the single bullet theory put forth by the government dose not. and if you dismiss the single bullet theory then you have to dismiss the whole warren commission report.

Diogenes

barabbas wrote: »

As the video shows, the bullet should reflect the damage it inflicted, which it clearly did not.

No it did not. The selection of bullets presented was put forward as the potential shape of the bullet.

Can you explain why the bullet is remarkably undamaged? and can you further explain why it was not recovered from Connolly's thigh where if you use logic it should be?

The bullet was slowed by the fact that it entered and exited densely packed tissue, not once, not twice, but three times. The wound to his thigh was the least serious of the three injuries.

and you still have not shown me where they show all the wound's in any documentary in any video that you have pointed me to.

Because the documentary focuses on the wounds to Kennedy particularly. But I can link you to the entire film if you so desire.

Oh and speaking of "Not shown me" you've yet to explain how the if the neck wound to Kennedy was an entry wound, how the bullet did not pass through Connally, or if it did was the gunman lying on the ground in the middle of the street?

Diogenes

uprising wrote: »

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XY02Qkuc_f8

Watch the secret service men being stood down, when they should have been protectng JFK.

There are well documented instances of Kennedy telling the secret service agents not ride alongside his car. He disliked the image of him requiring bodyguards, and often insisted they keep their distance.

If you search the forum, this matter has been raised before, and rebutted.

Diogenes

barabbas wrote: »

Hitler was many things but stupid wasn't one of them. He managed to take control of the minds of one of the most economically advanced nations on the planet at the time. I think he new a thing or to about making you believe lies.

At the time of Hitler's rise to power Germany was in the middle of hyper inflation, and nearly bankrupt. It's people were desperate. He gained power by a slim majority. I think you need to read up some more on history.

And it's relevant to the discussion because it shows that it's possible to convince people that lie's are the truth even though they make no sense. which the single bullet theory put forth by the government dose not. and if you dismiss the single bullet theory then you have to dismiss the whole warren commission report.

You've yet to put forward a coherent rational to rebut the single bullet, or a plausible alternative.

Penn

barabbas wrote: »

However, do i think it's possible? Yes it's possible but highly unlikely that a single bullet caused four wounds two to kennedy and two to connally, and that is only if you accept that the neck wound is an exit wound, witch i dont, but thats a hole other argument.

Well if the neck wound is not an exit wound, where did the bullet go? Was it still in Kennedy? Was there another exit wound?