JFK Assassination

Diogenes · 04-12-2006 12:55PM

miju wrote:

it is but READ my post correctly, next time before posting particularly the part where it says havent got the link at the moment but google it in the meantime ......... meanwhile later that day the links get posted , try to pick holes in the theories so we can have a healthy debate etc but please don't start nitpicking and going off topic

No sorry this isn't nickpicking. You started by claiming,

miju wrote:

it can be proved VERY substantially and that it actually ties in a bit too scarily to 9 /11 conspiracy theorys

Then when challenged you post this;

miju wrote:

well your wrong it can be thanks to declassified memos / documents

When it was pointed out that the actually memo you posted didn't prove anything you back peddled;

it was an example of the kind of evidence (hence me saying example)

Miju that memo doesn't prove a single thing. If that;s an example of the "very substanatially" evidence you have, then you have nothing at all but conjecture and speculation.

off topic for a moment it's not beyond the realms of plausibility given some of their previous escapades ,

Well yeah if you say "Lets keep an open mind" nothing is beyond the realms of plausibility. But does Jones offer a shred of actuall concrete evidence to support his claims? Does he me arse. While anyone with a modicum of wit will tell you that there is no way Colm Murphy was an Mi5 stool.

alex jones can quite often put across a well articulated argument , i'll be one of the first to admit however that some of his "theories" are out there in the stratosphere

Ah the "David Icke is onto something if you ignore the Reptilian Overlords" school of reasoning. I'm sorry, I come from a world where, if it's proven to me, that a person (in this case Alex Jones) consistently mispresents facts, lies, makes claims that they cannot substantiate Then everything that person says, and their reasons for saying it, must be called into question.

Alex Jones is an incoherant bully, and you can watch him do all of the above on this link;
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8820426888499996890#28m33s
Jones is the fat loud git in the sunglasses the guy he is debating with is an amateur conspiracy theorist debunker.

well then you didn't read my first post correctly , i said quite clearly first 30 mins or so is the usual conspiracy reasoning

Sorry Miju, no you didn't, you said;

Miju wrote:

watch this video the first 20 minutes is the usual conspiracy reasoning so skip if you wish to about 25 minutes in it explains it / substantiates what i'm saying

Twenty isn't thirty. And if a documentary is already spouting massive factual errors, and using a work of fiction to back up what it is saying, within the first fifteen minutes, I'm going to laugh at it, and switch it off.

, it was the last 45 mins that i was referring to which spends the whole time stringing together the bush connection quite well actually with bay of pigs , zapata oil , cuban americans etc, senator connolly changing his description of events significantly , bush denying he was CIA at the time despite it being shown otherwise , etc but of course you never got to that part :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

No other users got there before me.

I'll ask you this about the above. Yeah? So? And? What? Do they above prove a CIA connection to Bush? Yes. The bloke is a former CIA director for goodness sake. Do the above prove any link to Bush and the Kennedy assasination? Not a word of it.

given the above and you couldn't even read the part i was referring to in the video my presumption of not wasting the effort typing up a big synopsis full of links was right

Other posters myself included have made the effort, I'm not wasting my time watching a documentary thats already riddled with factual inaccuracies, ten minutes in.

You've posted one of those memos before and it's been rubbished, now you're posting another equally irrelevant memo. You claim its supported by a video by someone, who you yourself admit, is "out there". This isn't anything remotely like "very substantial" evidence that you claim you have, in your first post .

You don't want to waste your time posting links and making arguments, you just want us to waste our valuable time wading through Alex Jones's work of fiction, on the promise he stops making stuff up after half an hour? And you're the one using the rolleye smiley? Really?

how has it been conclusively proven?, there is an abundance of experts who will disagree with you as well as the natural laws of physics that he was the only one

Really? Please post examples of these experts, or the laws of physics that Oswald's bullets "disagree" with. OFDM proved, very conclusively, that Oswald could have made the shots. What do you claim defies the laws of physics? Do you think Oswald couldn't have made the shot in the timeframe required? Or that you hold onto the "magic bullet" theory. The "magic bullet" theory is a strawman, no one spreads the magic bullet theory but conspiracy theorists. They claim it is the offical version of events. Its not.

I cannot believe I'm posting a youtube link, but here a piece of video where the single bullet theory is explained;
http://youtube.com/watch?v=2kEh3Kgwhk0

Don't believe the seating arrangement?
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/sbt3.jpg

So if you claim there is wealth of experts and you have the laws of physics on your side, please start posting some examples of this. Perhaps along with this "evidence" of Bush's connection with the assasination, that you've been witholding from this thread.

LuckyLloyd · 04-12-2006 01:23PM

This is a fascinating topic to be sure.

Oliver Stone’s film is unquestionably riddled with inaccuracies. The film hinges on the central point that it was physically implausible for LHO to do the damage he did with three bullets.

That theory has been disproved. Considering the fact that the man was a good shot, and that modern computer evidence shows that three bullets fired from that spot could do the necessary damage – it appears that the possibility of a lone shooter is there.

However, proof that LHO could have physically carried out the shooting alone is not definitive proof of the absence of any form of conspiracy.

In my mind there is a fundamental problem when approaching this subject – it doesn’t appear as if LHO would have had any particular reason to do the shooting. This for me is the interesting part of Stone’s film – the examination of a possible motivation within the military industrial base that desperately wanted an escalation to activities in Vietnam – and the presence of important political and military figures within the corridors of power that were still struggling with a hangover from the anti – communist witch hunts of the preceding decade. Of course, this stuff will never be conclusively proven – as it unrealistic to think that there is any real evidence that could pin it on an individual or group of individuals.

I will always make time to look at any new evidence or crackpot theory – but I realise that finding a conclusive answer is extremely unlikely. Nonetheless, I am enjoying the posts and debate. Good reading in work if nothing else.

Diogenes · 04-12-2006 04:31PM

LuckyLloyd wrote:

In my mind there is a fundamental problem when approaching this subject – it doesn’t appear as if LHO would have had any particular reason to do the shooting.

Oswald had a history of mental problems, had made several suicide attempts and had been commited to a mental institution. He had made an attempt on the life of General Walker several months before he assasination Kennedy. He was a voricious supporter of Cuba, a country Kennedy had attempted to invade. There's motive. People have tried to kill Presidents for less. John Hinckley anyone?

The flaw of the "conspiracy theory" is Oswald. Oswald had to be involved in the plot to some degree has to involve Oswald, otherwise why would he run and shoot Tibbit?

Why would a complex conspiracy to kill Kennedy include a mentally unstable 24 year old? Who had tried to defect to Russia (he was rejected at the first try) Someone who had attempted suicide, possibly twice. A Dishonourly discharged Marine who was an mediocre shot, and by the end of his tour had been demoted to private and was doing menial work. And a fanatical supporter of Cuba. Does this really sound like a man who you'd let in, on any level, on the biggest conspiracy of all time?

Diogenes · 06-12-2006 11:43AM

miju wrote:

what if i was to say George Bush Senior was one of the main (if not the main) orchestrators of the JFK assanation and it can be proved VERY substantially

So Miju it's been a week since you made this claim, do you want to present this very sustantial (sic) evidence any time soon?

bonkey · 06-12-2006 05:25PM

Is this just another case of "watch this video, because it makes the argument I'm not going to"?

miju wrote:

i can make the argument perfectly well to be honest but there's no point in reiterating it with multiple links / references etc when it's all there cleanly presented and better articulated than what i could do

So that was a yes then?

so if you want to watch the segment i referred to then post a constructive reply fine if you dont then thats also fine but don't come here trying to spoil a debate

I see no debate. I see you telling people to watch a video because you believe in some of the stuff it says. I see you making claims that evidence exists, but not backing it up.

You posted a link to a video. Great. I can almost-certainly find existing reviews of said video from critics who've gone to the trouble of pulling it apart. I could then post that link and say "this is whats wrong with your video". Sure, I could actually offer my own viewpoint, but whats the point, right? Someone else has done the work, so like you I shouldn't repeat the work, but just link to it and then wait for you to post a link to someone who's already refuted my linked-to-refutation.

We could continue on, posting link and counter-link, or we could just tell people to skip the entire thing, use google, and find both sides of the argument themselves.

I'm not trying to spoil a debate. I'm trying to encourage one.

You think your tactics are fine, but if they are all both sides used, there would be no debate. Hell, there would be little more than just a single post telling people "this has all been discussed before. Go to JREF or one of those places and read the existing threads". Now we can reduce the entire thing into a single link where both sides are succinctly embodied.

That sound good to you? Or is there some reason why I shouldn't adopt the same tactics that you think are acceptable? Do you not see the problem that arises if both sides follow that path?

So that leaves me a choice - I can let you use the lazy approach, and I can write pages and pages of refutation, or I can refuse to engage until you abandon the lazy approach and engage me on an equal-effort footing where each of us actually makes our own case.

I chose the latter, because that would actually be a debate. I'm utterly astounded that you think I'm trying to kill such a debate by asking you to actually make your own case. What do you think a debate is, if not both sides arguing their own case???

have you even looked up Zapata Oil?

You know, its funny...the very day you posted this, I had just read an article which surmised that one reason so many conspiracy theorists act the way they do is that they've finally found a topic where they can wade in believing they're experts and talk down to everyone else with this "I have the inside story, and the only reason you could possibly have for disagreeing with me is that you don't have what I think are the facts".

And right on the button, in you wade, assuming that because I am taking the well-established stance of "if you're too lazy to form the argument, I'm too lazy to refute it" that I know nothing about the subject.

Well done.

Next step should be for you to start castigating people for not keeping an open mind and for buying into the official fantasy so readily. Use the term sheeple to score extra points.

Diogenes · 22-12-2006 01:35PM

Still waiting Miju...

miju · 23-12-2006 11:42AM

half way through Diogenes as said before lots of info , references , links etc so as the get rid of that smugness you falsely have

currently on page 18 of the condensed version :-) , not that i'll expect you to read any of it but others i'm sure will be very interested

Guy:Incognito · 23-12-2006 11:59AM

OFDM wrote:

while the Kennedy shoot would been only 50 yards away.

DublinWriter wrote:

The fatal JFK shot was at 88 meters from the fifth floor of the book repository.

DublinWriter wrote:

The range from the Book Depository to the Presidential Limo was 52 metres.

Does anyone have a definate distance?

Diogenes · 23-12-2006 01:34PM

miju wrote:

half way through Diogenes as said before lots of info , references , links etc so as the get rid of that smugness you falsely have

currently on page 18 of the condensed version :-) , not that i'll expect you to read any of it but others i'm sure will be very interested

Um Muji it's been nigh on a month now. You've;

A) Failed to provide any of the "very substantial" evidence that George Bush Sr was "one of", or "the main" "orchestrators" of the JFK assasination.

Failed to give examples of the experts who disagree that Oswald could make the shot.

C) Failed to show which "natural laws of physics" Oswald or his gun, or bullets, defied to "make the shot".

Where is this 18 page condensed version? Condensed version of what, btw? If you're just going to lazily link to another tedious Alex Jones video, I'll stop holding my breath.

Please if you are going to actually debate the issue post facts, bring something to the table. Then as bonkey says

bonkey wrote:

So that leaves me a choice - I can let you use the lazy approach, and I can write pages and pages of refutation, or I can refuse to engage until you abandon the lazy approach and engage me on an equal-effort footing where each of us actually makes our own case.

I'm waiting for you to bring something "very substantial" (sic) to the table. When you present a body of evidence, I'll read and discuss it.

You snidely suggest that I won't look at what you post. Hmm. I've looked at every link you've posted your thread. I switched off you Alex Jones video when it was making massive factual errors within ten minutes (that and when it called the makers of Oliver Stone's JKF "heroes" I actually vomited in my mouth) so snidely suggesting I won't entertain information that you present is a little low. A lot low. If you have "very substantial" evidence of a conspiracy, why hide it from this forum. Hell, why hide it from the world. I'd suggest that if you don't bring something to the table by this time next month, what are you doing modding this forum?

All I'm doing is bumping this thread ever couple of weeks to remind you you've failed to do so, so far.

Stekelly wrote:

Does anyone have a definate distance?

My understanding is that it was under 88 yards, the US military still holding onto yards as a measure for years.

Mr. Presentable · 22-01-2007 11:35PM

miju wrote:

currently on page 18 of the condensed version :-) , not that i'll expect you to read any of it but others i'm sure will be very interested

What ever happened to this evidence? Has it been posted elsewhere and I missed it? Or do we have to wait another 40 years :rolleyes:

Diogenes · 27-02-2007 12:24PM

nipplenuts wrote:

What ever happened to this evidence? Has it been posted elsewhere and I missed it? Or do we have to wait another 40 years :rolleyes:

Traffic Games released JFK Reloaded a simulation to recreate the shooting of JFK. Morbid and tastless, perhaps, but it accurately maps the ballistics of the bullets.You can download it here.

DublinWriter · 27-02-2007 01:31PM

Diogenes wrote:

Traffic Games released JFK Reloaded a simulation to recreate the shooting of JFK. Morbid and tastless, perhaps, but it accurately maps the ballistics of the bullets.You can download it here.

I bought that a couple of years ago and it's well worth a look at from the point of view of how it roughly demonstrates how easy it was for LHO (a trained US Marine shooter) to pop off at least 4 rounds.

hshortt · 27-02-2007 01:53PM

I loved the whole JFK assination conspiracy theory for a long time as a teenager and even wrote about it during class essays in school. There was one documentary that I remember seeing although I can't remember the name of it, anyway it had some photography enhancement done on the gassy knoll that showed a man in a police uniform with smoke rising above his shoulder. I loved it! Of course it was later all disproven etc etc. Shame really it was such a good story and there were really so many angles on it. I'd love to belive again, but having seen and read various reports it all points to LHO as being the man who pulled the trigger.

Cheerio
Howard

Wertz · 03-03-2007 05:27PM

Kennedy was plugged for his spat with Ben Gurion over Israel's wish to gain nuclear capability.
Mossad were likely ordered to play a major role in the logistics of the assasination (both inside and outside the US) by the Israeli leader before he was forced to step down over the whole nuclear controversy.
A US president who wouldn't play ball with the Jewish lobby? Hell no, fix that and get someone into office who will...

Read "Final Judgement" by Michael Piper for more on this topic. Of all the conspiratorial motives for taking out JFK, this one has an awful lot of circumstantial and documentary evidence of how Israel and the the jewish lobby benefitted directly in the short period of years of LBJ's time in office, in terms of a change in US foreign policy and the provision of military aid to the region....it also ended up having the bomb and possibly long before they officially admitted to having it (one for another thread really)

Diogenes · 24-06-2007 02:00PM

Hmmm I just finished Reclaiming History by Vincent Bugliosi (who, to summerise, prosecuted Manson, and then wrote the excellent "Helter Skelter") It's a massive tome, incredibly well researched, and highly regarded as the definitive book on the assassination.

I don't want to spoil the ending for, but yup you guessed it, Oswald did it.

This is a condensed summary of Bugliosi's summary of evidence against Oswald

from pgs. 955-966

1-8: 'curtain rods', guns, and uncharacteristic behavior of Oswald:

Instead of visiting his wife and kids on a Friday, as usual, O. went on Thursday, claiming he was picking up curtain rods. However, his apt. already had curtain rods. He did place a long package in the back of Frazier's car the next day, but it contained a rifle. No curtain rods were found. A rifle was found at the scene. O. typically talked about JKF, but avoided the subject the day before. The day of the murder, O. left behind his wedding ring and all the money he had. He didn't bring his lunch.
He walked ahead of Frazier instead of with him into the Book Depository.

11. Howard Brennan witnessed Oswald holding rifle in Depository window. He was 120 feet away. (ca. 12 car-lengths). He picked Oswald out in a lineup.

12. Rifle found on 6th floor of Depository.

13. Oswald first says he was on 1st floor, then later 6th floor of Dep. during interrogation, and his statements about this had other contradictions.

15. Oswald claimed he was eating lunch--not interested in JFK's visit--although he was avidly interested in JFK and politics.

16. Of all employees at the Dep., only Oswald was missing after the murder.

20. Oswald has cabdriver drive past his house instead of stopping in front.

21. There he was seen to be in a hurry.

22-23 Oswald picks up his revolver at rooming house, changes clothes.

24. Oswald murders officer J.D.Tippit, almost a mile from his rooming house. Witness Helen Markham picks him from lineup. There are other witnesses--actually ten of them.

25. Manager of shoe store sees man acting suspiciously, follows him to movie theater, calls police. Cashier at theater says Oswald ducks into theater without paying for ticket.

27,28,29. Oswald fights with police in theater, then refuses to give his name when arrested.

30,31. Oswald's triumphant demeanor after arrest, refuses to take lie-detector test.

33. Oswald's rifle found at Dep. building. Records show this rifle was shipped to O's p.o box in Dallas. Handwriting matches. Prints found. Fibers match clothing O. was wearing that day.

34. Three shells found at scene were fired from rifle.

36. a paper bag holding disassembled rifle found at scene. O's prints found on bag.

37. O's prints found on book cartons in sniper's nest at scene.

38. Revolver found on O. at arrest in theater, same evidence it was sent to his p.o. box in Dallas.

41. paraffin test on Oswald's hands were positive.

42. O. left his jacket behind on first floor of Dep.

44. O. had not performed any work at Dep. that day.

45.-53. Oswald's many proven lies during interrogation

tunaman · 03-07-2007 06:05PM

Diogenes wrote:

I don't want to spoil the ending for, but yup you guessed it, Oswald did it.

So you are now trying to tell people Oswald did it, based on a book?

What about the real evidence?

Nothing on that list of yours proves Oswald killed JFK. He may have wanted to kill him, but that doesn't mean he did or was able to...

Here is footage of the fatal head shot that killed Kennedy.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6133163723563566557&q=jfk&total=5604&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=2

Now what direction are you claiming that the bullet came from?

Maybe oscar can slow it right down and we can all see once and for all where he was hit...

oscarBravo · 03-07-2007 06:14PM

tunaman wrote:

Maybe oscar can slow it right down and we can all see once and for all where he was hit...

Why would I bother? You'd only wave it off with a flippant remark.

For someone who talks a hell of a lot about evidence, you don't seem particularly interested in (a) producing any, or (b) discussing any that's presented.

You can argue (unless you're going to do another of your disappearing acts) that you provide evidence, but you don't: you post links to pictures that don't prove anything without context. You refuse point-blank to explain how those pictures demonstrate what you claim they demonstrate.

For all your snideness about my "frozen fireball" refutation, you can't deny that I've actually put some effort into it, and I'm prepared to stand over what I've posted and answer questions about it.

Why won't you do the same?

Diogenes · 03-07-2007 06:23PM

tunaman wrote:

So you are now trying to tell people Oswald did it, based on a book?

What about the real evidence?

No based on the evidence presented in the book.

Out of curiousity what evidence would satisfy you as to Oswald's guilt?

Nothing on that list of yours proves Oswald killed JFK. He may have wanted to kill him, but that doesn't mean he did or was able to...

Okay if I have this clear, you agree Oswald wanted to kill Kennedy. Worked in a place that overlooked the parade. Was armed with a rifle of the same calibre as the bullets that killed Kennedy. And that Oswald was a trained Marine marksman.

Do you agree on that?

Here is footage of the fatal head shot that killed Kennedy.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6133163723563566557&q=jfk&total=5604&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=2

Now what direction are you claiming that the bullet came from?

Maybe oscar can slow it right down and we can all see once and for all where he was hit...

This is the House Select commits autopshy photograph

Here is a list of witnesses who agree the top of his exploded not the front.

oscarBravo · 03-07-2007 06:25PM

tunaman wrote:

I agree with your analysis of the fireball...

Thank you.

tunaman wrote:

...so what's your problem?

No problem now that you've clarified.

tunaman wrote:

I just find it strange that you would go to all that trouble on something which was ridiculous to start with, yet fail to closely examine meaningful evidence.

But who defines what's "ridiculous"?

I agree that the hypothesis of realtime TV fakery was just bizarre, but the visual evidence seemed compelling at first glance. I demonstrated that it didn't actually demonstrate what it claimed to demonstrate, which reinforces the general principle that just because something looks like something at first glance, doesn't mean that it is.

The same is true of the stills you've posted of a collapsing WTC tower. You claim it shows an exploding building, but refuse to explain how the pictures are inconsistent with a collapsing building.

tunaman wrote:

I'm sorry to disappoint you but I have better things to do than waste my time in circular arguements with you and your mates. :rolleyes:

Me too, but I'm waiting for you to actually answer some questions. You're the one claiming that a picture shows something, but refusing to explain how it shows that.

tunaman wrote:

Why do you want me to tell you what to think?

I don't, and I don't know why you think I do.

tunaman wrote:

Footage of JFK getting his head blown off is not evidence, and proves nothing as it's not in context?

So it should be ignored then, and definitely not examined closely?

If you can examine this evidence and still (want to) believe the official conspiracy theory, then it's a waste of my time trying to talk to you.

OK, let's take a still from the video you posted:

Now take a closeup detail from it:

You can clearly see the cloud of blood and brain tissue exploding from the exit wound and appearing in front of Kennedy. Therefore he was shot from behind, which is consistent with the official story.

tunaman · 03-07-2007 06:43PM

oscarBravo wrote:

Why would I bother? You'd only wave it off with a flippant remark.

For someone who talks a hell of a lot about evidence, you don't seem particularly interested in (a) producing any, or (b) discussing any that's presented.

You can argue (unless you're going to do another of your disappearing acts) that you provide evidence, but you don't: you post links to pictures that don't prove anything without context. You refuse point-blank to explain how those pictures demonstrate what you claim they demonstrate.

For all your snideness about my "frozen fireball" refutation, you can't deny that I've actually put some effort into it, and I'm prepared to stand over what I've posted and answer questions about it.

Why won't you do the same?

You are making assumptions based on what, I don't know.

I agree with your analysis of the fireball, so what's your problem?

I just find it strange that you would go to all that trouble on something which was ridiculous to start with, yet fail to closely examine meaningful evidence.

I'm sorry to disappoint you but I have better things to do than waste my time in circular arguements with you and your mates. :rolleyes:

Why do you want me to tell you what to think?

Footage of JFK getting his head blown off is not evidence, and proves nothing as it's not in context?

So it should be ignored then, and definitely not examined closely?

If you can examine this evidence and still (want to) believe the official conspiracy theory, then it's a waste of my time trying to talk to you.

tunaman · 10-07-2007 12:38AM

Diogenes wrote:

No based on the evidence presented in the book.

Which means nothing, as it's just a story...

Out of curiousity what evidence would satisfy you as to Oswald's guilt?

Hard evidence.

Okay if I have this clear, you agree Oswald wanted to kill Kennedy. Worked in a place that overlooked the parade. Was armed with a rifle of the same calibre as the bullets that killed Kennedy. And that Oswald was a trained Marine marksman.

Do you agree on that?

You got all that from me saying that he may have wanted to kill JFK?

Like I said it's a nice story, which may or may not all be true, but it proves absolutely nothing.

This is the House Select commits autopshy photograph

Classic freudian slip.

So why are you so shy of showing people the real autosy photographs?

Instead you resort to this weak attempt, which includes the following warning...

DO NOT TOUCH SURFACE OF DRAWING

I don't how everybody else feels about your so called evidence, but you really have insulted my intelligence with your efforts.

For you and anybody else interested here are the realeased autopsy photos, including x-rays.

CAUTION - EXTREMELY GRAPHIC PHOTOS

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

Here is a list of witnesses who agree the top of his exploded not the front.

While at the same time there are dozens of witnesses who all agreed that the back of his head exploded, not the top or the front.

http://www.jfklancerforum.com/old_uploads/rear_head_wound_witnesses.jpg

So the supposed exit wound at the top of his head was really at the back of his head, but that would mean he was shot from the front, wouldn't it?

tunaman · 10-07-2007 12:49AM

oscarBravo wrote:

OK, let's take a still from the video you posted:

Why use a still when you could have slowed it down like you did with the fireball?

To post this still I assume you watched the footage, which had already been slowed right down, so why present this still instead?

You can clearly see the cloud of blood and brain tissue exploding from the exit wound and appearing in front of Kennedy. Therefore he was shot from behind, which is consistent with the official story.

Perfect example of something I learned from bonkey awhile ago, who rightly pointed out that when people use the word clearly in their arguement, it's usually because they have no evidence to back it up.

So how do you know what a cloud of blood and brain tissue clearly looks like?

If you watch the footage slowed down (again) then you will be able to observe that what you see is the entrance wound in the front of his head.

As you know that is in complete contradiction to the official conspiracy theory, but if you really want/have to believe otherwise then that's your choice.

oscarBravo · 10-07-2007 01:10AM

tunaman wrote:

Why use a still when you could have slowed it down like you did with the fireball?

To post this still I assume you watched the footage, which had already been slowed right down, so why present this still instead?

To draw attention to this one frame, of course.

tunaman wrote:

So how do you know what a cloud of blood and brain tissue clearly looks like?

When someone gets shot in the head with a high-velocity rifle round, it's reasonable to assume that blood and brain tissue will be expelled from the exit wound. What exactly do you think is pictured there?

tunaman wrote:

If you watch the footage slowed down (again) then you will be able to observe that what you see is the entrance wound in the front of his head.

And if you knew anything about ballistics, you'd know that a high-velocity round has a small entrance wound and a large, explosive exit wound.

Diogenes · 10-07-2007 02:44AM

tunaman wrote:

Which means nothing, as it's just a story...

By story, I think you mean well researched factually accurate account of what occured.

Hard evidence.

Could you give me an example of what would count to you has hard evidence? An explicit object or testimony that you would catergorise as hard evidence that would satisfy you.

You got all that from me saying that he may have wanted to kill JFK?

Like I said it's a nice story, which may or may not all be true, but it proves absolutely nothing.

Okay so you admit that he could have had motive.

Do you also admit that he was photographed with the alledged murder weapon? If not why not.

Do you agree that Oswald was trained to a significant degree to shoot Kennedy? If not, why not.

Do you agree that Oswald's place of work, and the location from where the Warren Comission claim the shots were fired were accessable to Oswald? And that his account of his movements is sketchy and contradictory? If not why not.

Classic freudian slip.

So why are you so shy of showing people the real autosy photographs?

I didn't post the photos because I thought it would be distastful.

Instead you resort to this weak attempt, which includes the following warning...

DO NOT TOUCH SURFACE OF DRAWING

What in the name of the great flying spagetti monster does the fact that they don't want you to touch the drawing got to do with anything? Routine handling paper with skin can damage paper. And what could you possibly obtain from picking it up that you cannot get from looking at it. It's a two dimensional object for crying out loud. Tunaman of all the spurious arguments. Please explain what on earth your point is here.

I don't how everybody else feels about your so called evidence, but you really have insulted my intelligence with your efforts.

Ad Hominen.

For you and anybody else interested here are the realeased autopsy photos, including x-rays.

CAUTION - EXTREMELY GRAPHIC PHOTOS

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

Instead of telling us this proves me right without explaining why, why not give us some supporting argument tunaman.

All those photos co-oberate the top of the skull theory, the scalp is peeled back where the flesh didn't tear giving the impression that the wound is coming from the front.

While at the same time there are dozens of witnesses who all agreed that the back of his head exploded, not the top or the front.

http://www.jfklancerforum.com/old_uploads/rear_head_wound_witnesses.jpg

Thats nice, but here plenty of medical evidence that it came through the front
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/medical.htmhttp://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/medical.htm

Eyewitness testimony alone isn't enough and with so many eye witnesses saying different things, they cease to be credible standing on their own.

So the supposed exit wound at the top of his head was really at the back of his head, but that would mean he was shot from the front, wouldn't it?

16 people support your claim, alledgely, I'd like their full names, and the location of were they were in Delay plaza, if you don't mind before, I even throw out the medical and balisitic evidence that support the bullet from behind theory.

Mahatma coat · 19-10-2007 03:43AM

theres always been a few things which just dont add up about this

this guy for one http://www.jamestague.com/

And Oswald

on the one hand we have a crack shot capable of sqeezin out 3 rounds from a cheap Italian rifle in between 7 and 10 seconds, allegedly getting at least 2 of those shots on target, he then packed up the rifle, went to the first floor where he was seen by other people, calmly exited the building and escaped on foot.

that shows a man of incredible composure.

on the other hand we have him Shooting Officer Tibbit, Acting suspicious enough to have a shoe shoesalesman follow him and then trying to hide in movie theater, drawing more attention by entering without paying,

these are schoolboy errors.

I believe that Oswald was at the window, I believe he conspired to kill JFK, I would credit him with at least the first shot that got connally as well, as for the head shot, my moneys on this Noel Grassie fella.

Diogenes · 19-10-2007 11:26AM

Mahatma coat wrote: »

theres always been a few things which just dont add up about this

this guy for one http://www.jamestague.com/

And Oswald

on the one hand we have a crack shot capable of sqeezin out 3 rounds from a cheap Italian rifle in between 7 and 10 seconds, allegedly getting at least 2 of those shots on target, he then packed up the rifle, went to the first floor where he was seen by other people, calmly exited the building and escaped on foot.

You've clearly not read the entire of this thread. Oswald's marksmanship ability has been discussed at length. By civilian standards Oswald was a superior shot, but by marine standards he was mediocre shot

that shows a man of incredible composure.

No this shows a man who had marksmanship drilled into him by the Marine Core.

on the other hand we have him Shooting Officer Tibbit, Acting suspicious enough to have a shoe shoesalesman follow him and then trying to hide in movie theater, drawing more attention by entering without paying,

these are schoolboy errors.

Oswald wasn't that bright. By the time he left the army he was reduced to menial duties because he'd, for example, discharged his rifle for no reason on guard duty. His first attempt to defect, was actually rejected by the soviets. He then attempted suicide, and the soviet's accepted him out of sheer embarrassment.

Oswald was a man who was trained well to shoot a gun. He didn't by marine standards have much skill at doing so. Thats it. Shooting was a reflex action to him, it was drilled into him, over and over again, like any Marine Marksman. The aftermath of his actions were not.

I believe that Oswald was at the window, I believe he conspired to kill JFK, I would credit him with at least the first shot that got connally as well, as for the head shot, my moneys on this Noel Grassie fella.

So if I have this clear. You think a conspiracy killed JFK yes? And you think this conspiracy included the active participation of Oswald? Tell me if you were conspiring to kill the most powerful man in the world, would you include an emotional unstable man, who was a mediocre shot? What did Oswald bring to the conspiracy?

Jocksereire · 19-10-2007 01:41PM

Diogenes wrote: »

What did Oswald bring to the conspiracy?

The perfect Patsy
"Im just a patsy" - Lee Harvey Oswald

bonkey · 19-10-2007 03:28PM

Jocksereire wrote: »

The perfect Patsy

If Oswald was as incompetent as those who reject the lone-shooter hypothesis typically claim, then he's far from the perfect patsy. The perfect patsy is someone of whom we should have no difficulty whatsoever accepting that they could be culpable...someone who's guilt stands up to teh closest of scrutinies.

And yet, when those who reject the lone-shooter hypothesis are asked why, it typically involves arguments to the effect that its almost brainlessly obvious that Oswald just couldn't be guilty of what is claimed because he couldn't have made the shots, didn't behave right, etc.

Jocksereire · 19-10-2007 04:26PM

bonkey wrote: »

If Oswald was as incompetent as those who reject the lone-shooter hypothesis typically claim,

Who says he is incompetent? I thought he was a better than average shooter according to the posts above? Personally i dont think he was incompetent

The perfect patsy is someone of whom we should have no difficulty whatsoever accepting that they could be culpable

No a patsy is someone who is taken advantage of. Thats your opinion he should have no difficulty whatsoever accepting they could be culpable. Im sure before that day if you asked him could he made those shots he would probably tell you he could. But thats just speculation and irrelevent. He had a poor shot/good shot/excellent shot who ever you listen to, was involved in communism, tried to defect etc..... sounds like a perfect patsy to me

...someone who's guilt stands up to teh closest of scrutinies.

i dont agree with your opinion of what a patsy should be so your point doesnt stand up..... in my opinon.

"Im just a patsy" - Lee Harvey Oswald

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar · 19-10-2007 04:34PM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=62gvoKyODu4

JFK Assassination

Comments