PDA

View Full Version : JFK assassination -- 50 years on...


mhgaffney
11-11-2013, 06:20 PM
We are 50 years down the road and still hearing the same sad story -- about a lone gunman. After a spate of excellent books on the subject in recent years -- notably Jim Douglas' exhaustively researched JFK AND THE UNSPEAKABLE....the continuing state of denial is no longer tolerable. MHG


JFK Assassination: CIA and New York Times are Still Lying To Us

Fifty years later, a complicit media still covers up for the security state. We need to reclaim our history

By David Talbot

November 08, 2013 "Information Clearing House - "Salon" -- We’ll never know, we’ll never know, we’ll never know. That’s the mocking-bird media refrain this season as we commemorate the 50th anniversary of America’s greatest mystery – the assassination of President John F. Kennedy. New York Times executive editor Jill Abramson hijacked a large chunk of her paper’s Sunday Book Review to ponder the Kennedy mystery. And after deliberating for page after page on the subject, she could only conclude that there was some “kind of void” at the center of the Kennedy story. Adam Gopnik was even more vaporous in the Nov. 4 issue of the New Yorker, turning the JFK milestone into an occasion for a windy cogitation on regicide as cultural phenomenon. Of course, constantly proclaiming “we’ll never know” has become a self-fulfilling prophecy for the American press. It lets the watchdogs off the hook, and excuses their unforgivable failure to actually, you know, investigate the epic crime. When it comes to this deeply troubling American trauma, the highly refined writers of the New Yorker and the elite press would rather muse about the meta-issues than get at the meat.

All this artful dodging about the murder of President Kennedy began, of course, nearly 50 years ago with the Warren Commission, the blue-ribbon panel that was appointed by President Lyndon Johnson — not to get at the truth, but to “lay the dust” (in the words of one commissioner) on all the disturbing rumors that were swirling around the bloody events in Dallas. Two new books take us inside the Warren Commission sausage factory, and show in often shocking detail how the august panel got it so terribly wrong. Soon after the Warren Report was released in September 1964, polls began showing that the American people rejected its conclusion that Lee Harvey Oswald was the lone assassin of the president – and nearly a half century later, the report remains a notorious symbol of official coverup. [This does not prevent Abramson from blithely declaring that “the historical consensus seems to have settled on” the lone gunman theory – there is no such consensus, only a deeply fractious ongoing debate.]

“A Cruel and Shocking Act” by former New York Times investigative reporter Philip Shenon has been soaking up most of the media spotlight in recent days. The book proclaims itself to be a “secret history of the Kennedy assassination.” Based largely on interviews with Warren Commission staff lawyers, the book reveals how the investigation was immediately taken over by the very government agencies — the CIA, FBI and Secret Service — that had the most to hide when it came to the assassination. The other new book, “History Will Prove Us Right,” was written by Howard Willens, a Warren Commission lawyer who refused to speak with Shenon. As suggested by the title — which is taken from a defiant statement by the commission chairman, Supreme Court Chief Justice Earl Warren – Willens’ book is a stubborn defense of the report that he helped produce. But ironically, after grinding one’s way through Willens’ serviceably written but highly revealing story, a reader can only come to the same conclusion that Shenon’s sexier expose’ demands – namely, that the Warren Report was the result of massive political cunning and investigative fraud.

Both books contain juicy and informative details that shed new light on the JFK investigation. (Shenon’s book also contains a few breathlessly advertised “scoops” that turn out to be rehashed stories or false leads.) But the two books also suffer from a strange cognitive dissonance. After elaborating on the many ways that the Warren Commission’s work was sabotaged by President Johnson, FBI chief J. Edgar Hoover (who immediately took charge of the investigation), former CIA director Allen Dulles (who conveniently got himself appointed to the commission), Treasury chief C. Douglas Dillon (who oversaw the Secret Service) and other Washington power players, the books seem to arrive at the same baffling conclusion as the deeply compromised Warren Report – i.e., that Oswald did it.

When it comes to the million-dollar question, Shenon is much more equivocal than Willens. He seems to think that Oswald might have had accomplices – but Oswald nonetheless remains at the center of Shenon’s story, rather than the intelligence officials, for instance, whom Sen. Richard Schweiker once remarked had their “fingerprints” all over the young alleged assassin. In following the conspiracy trail, Shenon quickly takes a wrong turn down the “Castro-as-mastermind” path. Perhaps because as a writer he found this story of deep espionage more intriguing than the Warren Commission’s twisted bureaucratic tale, the author lights off for Mexico City, where Oswald apparently visited (or was impersonated visiting) the Soviet and Cuban embassies in the days before Dallas. Shenon has Oswald dallying with a sexy clerk in the Cuban embassy, and perhaps getting entangled in a sinister Fidelista plot against JFK.

The problem with this tantalizing tale of Cuban intrigue is that it’s completely bogus and has been consistently debunked over the years – despite the best efforts of former CIA spooks like Brian Latell (“Castro’s Secrets”), whom Shenon credits as an inspiration, to revive it. One of the better jobs at deconstructing the Castro theory was done by Gerald McKnight, a professor emeritus of history at Maryland’s Hood College. In “Breach of Trust” – his 2005 exploration of the Warren Commission’s failure, which remains the best book on the topic – McKnight illuminates how immediately after the gunfire in Dealey Plaza, the CIA began an aggressive disinformation campaign to link Oswald with Castro. As McKnight documents, President Johnson was so alarmed that this propaganda offensive would lead to war with Cuba (and perhaps a nuclear confrontation with the Soviet Union) that he prevailed on his friend J. Edgar Hoover to help him shut down the CIA’s explosive rumor-mongering. Fifty years later, Shenon has fallen into the same spook trap on Cuba.

Shenon does have a remarkable story to tell about Castro – and it completely undermines his dark conjecture about the Cuban leader. In the summer of 1964, Castro passed word to Washington that he wanted to tell his story to the Warren Commission. William Coleman – the commission’s only African-American lawyer – had met Castro back in the early 1950s, when they were both young men enjoying Harlem’s nightlife. As the obvious staff member to undertake the mission, Coleman set off for the Caribbean, where he met with his old acquaintance on a yacht anchored off Cuba. For three hours, Coleman fired questions at Castro about a possible Cuban plot against JFK, with Fidel steadfastly insisting that he admired JFK and had nothing to do with his murder. In fact, it would later be revealed that in the months before his death, Kennedy had begun to soften the hostile U.S. stance against Havana and had opened back channels to Castro. After returning from his secret mission, Coleman reported back to Warren that he found no proof Castro was involved in JFK’s murder. The Coleman story is not the hot scoop advertised by Shenon – it was first reported years ago by Irish journalist Anthony Summers, one of the more dogged diggers in the Kennedy field. But it certainly bears repeating.

To give Shenon and Willens their due, both books contain a number of startling facts, some of which are new, at least to me. For example, Shenon spotlights these intriguing bits of information:

After returning home from his grim duties, Dr. James Humes, the Navy pathologist in charge of the Kennedy autopsy at the Bethesda Naval Hospital, burned his original autopsy report in the fireplace in his family room. Humes’ superior officer was so concerned that the pathologist himself might be eliminated by the plotters who killed JFK that he ordered Humes to be escorted home that night.

Arlen Specter, the Warren Commission lawyer (and future U.S. senator), first presented his soon-to-be infamous single bullet theory to Chief Justice Warren while the two men were standing at the sixth-floor window of the Texas Book Depository where the mediocre marksman Oswald allegedly committed his historic crime. After listening silently to Specter explain the magical trajectory of Oswald’s bullet, Warren simply turned on his heel and walked away without saying a word. Warren – a distinguished chief justice with a monumental record on civil rights – had resisted serving on the presidential commission. He knew that his duty was not to find the truth, but to suppress dangerous evidence that – as LBJ had warned him – might lead to World War III. Still, it must have dismayed the 73-year-old jurist to see how his historic report (and his reputation) would be tied to a patently absurd ballistics theory.

In the years following the Warren Report’s release, several of the commissioners and staff members distanced themselves from their own report and publicly criticized the manifold deceptions of the agencies on which they had relied, namely the FBI and CIA. Among those who suffered grave doubts was lawyer David Slawson, the man who had been the Warren Commission’s lead investigator into whether JFK was the victim of a conspiracy. In 1975 Slawson aired his criticisms to the New York Times, attacking the CIA for withholding vital information from the commission and calling for a new JFK investigation. Within days of the story breaking in the Times, Slawson received a strange and threatening phone call from James Angleton, the spectral CIA counterintelligence chief. Angleton – who had not only closely monitored Oswald for several years before Dallas, but later took charge of the agency’s investigation into the alleged assassin – adopted a decidedly sinister tone during his call with Slawson, making it clear to the lawyer that he would be wise to remain “a friend of the CIA.” Slawson and his wife were deeply unnerved by the call. He thought the message was clear: “Keep your mouth shut.”

For his part, Willens, who had been loaned out to the Warren Commission by Robert Kennedy’s Justice Department, reveals new information about the attorney general and his troubled relationship with the official investigation into his brother’s death. RFK resolutely kept his distance from the proceedings of the Warren Commission — which was stacked with RFK’s political enemies and reported to a new president with whom he had a poisonous relationship. But, as Willens reveals, Kennedy did briefly insert a lawyer on the Warren Commission staff – in addition to Willens himself. This Kennedy mole used his position on the commission to dig into possible connections between the JFK assassination and the Mafia-connected Teamster leader Jimmy Hoffa, another mortal enemy of RFK.

As soon as he had heard the devastating news from Dallas on the afternoon of Nov. 22, 1963, Attorney General Robert Kennedy immediately suspected that his brother had been the victim of a plot. RFK believed that the shadowy assassination operation against Fidel Castro – a dark alliance between the CIA and the Mafia – had somehow been turned against President Kennedy. When Dallas nightclub operator Jack Ruby stunned the nation by shooting Oswald on national TV while he was being escorted through the basement of the Dallas Police Department, Bobby and his Justice Department investigators quickly turned their attention to Ruby. Within hours, RFK’s men found that Ruby had numerous connections to organized crime.

According to Shenon, the Warren Commission lawyers who were assigned to investigate Ruby – Burt Griffin and Leon Hubert — came to the same disturbing conclusion. Equally unnerving, the commission lawyers also suspected that the Dallas police sergeant who was in charge of Oswald’s security had allowed Ruby to slip into police headquarters and gun down the alleged assassin. But Griffin and Hubert were shut down before they could complete their Ruby investigation. And Griffin was reprimanded for daring to confront the Dallas police sergeant with his suspicions. Warren even publicly apologized to the cop when he was called to testify before the commission in Washington.

The post-assassination Washington revealed in these two books brings to mind ancient Rome. The capital’s chambers and private clubs were filled with dark whispers. The most powerful elements of government maneuvered to make sure their deepest secrets would not be revealed. Royal blood had been spilled and the new regime was determined that the public must never know why.

In the end, Shenon and Willens do little to further enlighten the public about the who, what or why of the Kennedy assassination. A growing historical consensus now sees JFK as presiding over a bitterly divided government, with Kennedy and his peace-minded inner circle on one side and a war-hungry Cold War establishment on the other. Even humdrum Kennedy historian Robert Dallek has now signed on to this view, with a new book that argues JFK’s biggest enemies were not Communist leaders but his own generals and espionage chiefs. This is a sobering conclusion, of course, because it provides a possible explanation for the bloody regime change in Dallas.

These dark waters are simply too ominous for authors like Shenon and Willens to explore. Despite his willingness to expose the Warren Commission’s tortured process, Shenon cannot bring himself to condemn its conclusions. At the end of the day, he remains a product of the New York Times – a newspaper that rushed to embrace the Warren Report months before it was even completed and, as Abramson’s wordy screed attests, is still more interested in ridiculing and marginalizing even the most credible conspiracy researchers than in getting at the truth. Mainstream journalists know that – even 50 years (!) later — they don’t dare go beyond the safe confines of “we’ll never know,” or they won’t be appearing on “Meet the Press” any time soon.

Shenon writes that he worked for five years on his Warren Commission book – and yet the sum of these efforts is to bring him back to the beginning, where the commission left the investigation. In the end, he doesn’t know quite what to make of JFK’s murder. His confusion becomes clear in his acknowledgments where he lists the books that he believes are “the essential library” on the Kennedy case – the books that “will still be read generations from now.” Shenon’s list is a contradictory hodgepodge, lumping together books from the conspiracy camp (like my own “Brothers,” Jefferson Morley’s “Our Man in Mexico” and Gaeton Fonzi’s “The Last Investigation”) with hardcore lone gunman titles (like Gerald Posner’s “Case Closed” and Vincent Bugliosi’s “Reclaiming History”). This weirdly polarized reading list underlines Shenon’s failure to resolve his own thinking on the case.

[See the author's list of essential JFK sources below the article.]

In contrast to the vacillating Shenon, Willens at least has the courage of his convictions. He’s a Warren Commission apologist, pure and simple. And yet in a recent conversation, he sounded somewhat less certain, as we discussed new revelations that his own political patron, Robert Kennedy, never believed the Warren Report and was determined to find the truth on his own.

Fifty years later, Willens still can’t offer a credible motive for why Oswald supposedly killed Kennedy. In his book, he reveals that the commission assigned staff lawyer Wesley Liebeler to write a memo on Oswald’s “Possible Personal Motive” – but the panel found Liebler’s effort so unconvincing that it was rejected. In the end, the Warren Commission decided against offering a definitive motive for the murder, leaving the country forever puzzled by the young man who insisted he was a “patsy.”

After painstakingly documenting how the country’s security agencies played the Warren Commission, Shenon and Willens both explain away this monumental deception by claiming that the country’s intelligence apparatus was simply trying to hide its embarrassing failure to protect the president. But there’s another, more disturbing conclusion that is left hanging in the air. If the CIA was just trying to hide embarrassing mistakes back in the 1960s – security lapses that have long since been exposed — what is the agency still trying to conceal?

At the half-century mark, it’s clearly high time for the nation to go beyond all the self-serving apologias – and beyond all the equivocation and speculation. We need the facts – as Jefferson Morley, one of the few journalists to devote serious effort to the Kennedy case, has demonstrated. Morley has been pursuing a lengthy Freedom of Information battle with the CIA to pry loose more than 1,500 documents that the agency is still concealing in defiance of the 1992 JFK Records Act. At long last, we need the government to come clean and provide the American people with what is legally theirs – every piece of classified information relating to the Kennedy assassination. Failing that, if the CIA continues to defy the law, the nation needs another Edward Snowden.

The assassination of President Kennedy and its subsequent coverup was a triumph for the rapidly growing U.S. national security state. Fifty years later, that surveillance colossus increasingly treats the American people as if we’re enemies of the state. We can begin to take control of our future by finally demanding ownership of our past.


for further reading (scroll down):

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article36797.htm

Rohirrim
11-11-2013, 09:09 PM
I heard that Oswald did it.

ak1971
11-11-2013, 09:44 PM
I heard that Oswald did it.

didnt it have something to do with mini nukes?

SoCalBronco
11-11-2013, 10:12 PM
Over/Under 11 posts before NIST report gets mentioned.

houghtam
11-11-2013, 10:14 PM
I heard Gaff did it.

Fill in your nefarious reasons here...

L.A. BRONCOS FAN
11-11-2013, 10:21 PM
We are 50 years down the road and still hearing the same sad story -- about a lone gunman. After a spate of excellent books on the subject in recent years -- notably Jim Douglas' exhaustively researched JFK AND THE UNSPEAKABLE....the continuing state of denial is no longer tolerable. MHG

Co-signed.

I would challenge the proponents of the official bullsh*t story, i.e., "Oswald acted alone," to read Douglas' book and see if they can still defend their position.

Bronco Yoda
11-12-2013, 12:07 AM
HBO had an interesting documentary last week based on the book by Bonar Menninger and Howard Donahue.

The ''Secret Service agent accidentally fired the shot that actually killed JFK" theory.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mortal_Error:_The_Shot_That_Killed_JFK
.
.
.
.

The smoking Gun site: (check out the forensic evidence section)
http://www.jfkthesmokinggun.com/

This documentary is playing this month on Reelz channel.

Nov. 12th, 15th, 19th, 22nd (check site for times http://www.reelz.com/smokinggun/)

Rohirrim
11-12-2013, 04:28 AM
Fifty years of conjecture and not a shred of evidence.

alkemical
11-12-2013, 05:34 AM
This event is when the coup happened.

mhgaffney
11-12-2013, 05:14 PM
Fifty years of conjecture and not a shred of evidence.

Clarify what you mean. If you mean - not a shred of evidence that Oswald acted alone -- I'd agree.

FYI, the shooter on the grassy knoll confessed years ago. If you don't believe it -- this just means you are poorly informed.

Check out the Douglas book -- and this new documentary -- the best film ever made about the JFK assassination..

http://www.amazon.com/Shot-JFK-The-Shocking-Truth/dp/B00AMHFQXM/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&qid=1384301505&sr=8-3&keywords=files+on+jfk

Garcia Bronco
11-12-2013, 05:32 PM
They have proven beyond a shadow of doubt that Oswald was the lone gunman.

Let me repeat that

They have proven beyond a shadow of doubt that Oswald was the lone gunman.

Get over it 60's kids. A crazyman killed your false Pope.

Garcia Bronco
11-12-2013, 05:33 PM
FYI, the shooter on the grassy knoll confessed years ago. If you don't believe it -- this just means you are poorly informed.



Then whomever lied. The found all 3 bullets. All from the book repository window. You're obviously quoting someone seeking attention.

Garcia Bronco
11-12-2013, 05:39 PM
Now Lincoln...that was a conspiracy...but not by the Government. They tried to Kill Lincoln, Johnson, and parts of his cabinet all in the same night, or so the story goes....

mhgaffney
11-12-2013, 06:24 PM
Then whomever lied. The found all 3 bullets. All from the book repository window. You're obviously quoting someone seeking attention.

You conclude this -- without even watching the interview with James Files?

You must be on drugs.

FYI, the last official investigation into the JFK murder concluded - on the basis of acoustic studies -- that at least 4 bullets were fired. This was a 1979 congressional investigation. They concluded it was a conspiracy.

In fact, there were more than 4 bullets fired. Lets count them.

One bullet hit JFK in the throat - maybe the first one fired. This shooter was out in front of the motorcade - and has never been identified. The surgeon in Dallas did a tracheotomy on JFK -- in a futile effort to save his life. The tracheotomy altered the entry wound in the throat. The doctor later said he regretted doing the tracheotomy -- because it made the throat entry wound look like an exit wound.

A second bullet hit JFK in the back. The Warren Commission claimed that this bullet exited the throat. This was one of the Commissions big lies.

JFK's clothing proves that the back entry wound was lower down -- at about the level of the scapula. No way it exited the throat. This bullet may still be in JFK's coffin. To thr best of my knowledge, it was never recovered.

To his eternal shame, Gerald Ford altered the autopsy report to make it appear that the back wound was higher -- to support the single bullet theory. This alteration of evidence by Ford -- explodes the Warren Commission Report to hell -- and proves it was a cover up.

A third bullet missed JFK and hit the curb, injuring a bystander.

A fourth bullet hit Texas governor Connally.

A fifth bullet from the grassy knoll -- the kill shot -- took off the back of JFK's head. In the Zapruder film you can clearly see JFK's head jerk back.

JFK was in a crossfire. At least three shooters were involved. No way JFK was going to survive the drive through Dealey Plaza.
MHG

Rohirrim
11-12-2013, 06:30 PM
Clarify what you mean. If you mean - not a shred of evidence that Oswald acted alone -- I'd agree.

FYI, the shooter on the grassy knoll confessed years ago. If you don't believe it -- this just means you are poorly informed.

Check out the Douglas book -- and this new documentary -- the best film ever made about the JFK assassination..

http://www.amazon.com/Shot-JFK-The-Shocking-Truth/dp/B00AMHFQXM/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&qid=1384301505&sr=8-3&keywords=files+on+jfk

Evidence. You know. The stuff they have to have in court to prove a charge.

mhgaffney
11-12-2013, 06:34 PM
Evidence. You know. The stuff they have to have in court to prove a charge.

You say you read. Did you read JFK AND THE UNSPEAKABLE? Answer: No.

FYI, the book is exhaustively documented - with 100 pages of footnotes --

It proves the CIA - with the help of the Chicago mob -- did the hit. The book convinced Ellsberg. It also convinced me.

Check it out.

mhgaffney
11-12-2013, 06:37 PM
Reviews of JFK AND THE UNSPEAKABLE.

Editorial Reviews
Amazon.com Review

"In JFK and the Unspeakable Jim Douglass has distilled all the best available research into a very well-documented and convincing portrait of President Kennedy's transforming turn to peace, at the cost of his life. Personally, it has made a very big impact on me. After reading it in Dallas, I was moved for the first time to visit Dealey Plaza. I urge all Americans to read this book and come to their own conclusions about why he died and why -- after fifty years -- it still matters.” -- Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.

“Right now, I ask all of you—please please, read JFK and the Unspeakable! I cried all night reading it, and didn’t sleep a wink. It is a book that could make us stand up and change the world, right now. Maybe we can save the world before it blows up. Really” —Yoko Ono --This text refers to the Hardcover edition.
Review

“A remarkable story that changed the way I view the world.”—JAMES BRADLEY, author of Flags of Our Fathers


“Arguably the most important book yet written about a U.S. president … Should be required reading for all high school and college students, and anyone who is a registered voter!”—JOHN PERKINS, author of Confessions of an Economic Hitman


“The best account I have read of this tragedy and its significance … But don’t take my word for it. Read this extraordinary book and reach your own conclusions.” —OLIVER STONE, director


"Jim Douglass has unraveled the story of President Kennedy’s astonishing and little-known turn toward peace, and the reasons why members of his own government felt he must be eliminated. This disturbing, enlightening, and ultimately inspiring book should be read by all Americans. It has the power to change our lives and to set us free."—MARTIN SHEEN


“JFK and the Unspeakable is an exceptional achievement. Douglass has made the strongest case so far in the JFK assassination literature as to the Who and the Why of Dallas.”—GERALD McNIGHT, author of Beach of Trust: How the Warren Commission Failed the Nation and Why


“Once in a great while a book comes along that both records history and makes it. … An exciting work with the drama of a first-rate thriller.” —MARK LANE, author of Rush to Judgment

houghtam
11-12-2013, 06:41 PM
You say you read. Did you read JFK AND THE UNSPEAKABLE? Answer: No.

FYI, the book is exhaustively documented - with 100 pages of footnotes --

It proves the CIA - with the help of the Chicago mob -- did the hit. The book convinced Ellsberg. It also convinced me.

Check it out.

Wow!

A book convinced you, of all people, of a conspiracy?

Color me convinced, as well.

mhgaffney
11-12-2013, 06:45 PM
No, not a book. E-v-i-d-e-n-c-e.

Garcia Bronco
11-12-2013, 07:21 PM
You conclude this -- without even watching the interview with James Files?

You must be on drugs.

FYI, the last official investigation into the JFK murder concluded - on the basis of acoustic studies -- that at least 4 bullets were fired. This was a 1979 congressional investigation. They concluded it was a conspiracy.

In fact, there were more than 4 bullets fired. Lets count them.

One bullet hit JFK in the throat - maybe the first one fired. This shooter was out in front of the motorcade - and has never been identified. The surgeon in Dallas did a tracheotomy on JFK -- in a futile effort to save his life. The tracheotomy altered the entry wound in the throat. The doctor later said he regretted doing the tracheotomy -- because it made the throat entry wound look like an exit wound.

A second bullet hit JFK in the back. The Warren Commission claimed that this bullet exited the throat. This was one of the Commissions big lies.

JFK's clothing proves that the back entry wound was lower down -- at about the level of the scapula. No way it exited the throat. This bullet may still be in JFK's coffin. To thr best of my knowledge, it was never recovered.

To his eternal shame, Gerald Ford altered the autopsy report to make it appear that the back wound was higher -- to support the single bullet theory. This alteration of evidence by Ford -- explodes the Warren Commission Report to hell -- and proves it was a cover up.

A third bullet missed JFK and hit the curb, injuring a bystander.

A fourth bullet hit Texas governor Connally.

A fifth bullet from the grassy knoll -- the kill shot -- took off the back of JFK's head. In the Zapruder film you can clearly see JFK's head jerk back.

JFK was in a crossfire. At least three shooters were involved. No way JFK was going to survive the drive through Dealey Plaza.
MHG

There were only 3 bullets fired over a period of about 17 seconds. There was one shooter. Your generation will be laughed at for decades to come on this one. They found every last one of them on Kennedy and the Gov. The Warren Commision was in no-way able to examine the evidence we can today with film.

Btw...the bullet that richcet...was the first bullet fired.

mhgaffney
11-12-2013, 07:31 PM
There were only 3 bullets fired over a period of about 17 seconds. There was one shooter. Your generation will be laughed at for decades to come on this one. They found every last one of them on Kennedy and the Gov. The Warren Commision was in no-way able to examine the evidence we can today with film.

Btw...the bullet that richcet...was the first bullet fired.

Found them? What does that mean? I'm sure you don't know.

So which of the 3 bullets hit the curb and injured the bystander on the street?

The bullet found on the stretcher was pristine -- without a blemish -- yet this was the magic bullet that supposed defied physics - passing through JFK and Connally making innumerable course changes -- hitting bones...

yet emerged with hardly a scratch. Forensics experts will tell you -- this is impossible. Another reason why the Warren Commission Report was a sham.

Only a brainwashed zombie would accept such a travesty.

MHG

orinjkrush
11-12-2013, 07:33 PM
an interesting alternate hypothesis: it was LBJ (with CIA muscle)

http://www.lewrockwell.com/podcast/roger-stone-it-was-lbj/

Garcia Bronco
11-12-2013, 08:13 PM
Found them? What does that mean? I'm sure you don't know.

So which of the 3 bullets hit the curb and injured the bystander on the street? the first one Oswald fired, the other two struck their targets

The bullet found on the stretcher was pristine -- without a blemish -- yet this was the magic bullet that supposed defied physics - passing through JFK and Connally making innumerable course changes -- hitting bones...

yet emerged with hardly a scratch. Forensics experts will tell you -- this is impossible. Another reason why the Warren Commission Report was a sham.

Only a brainwashed zombie would accept such a travesty.

MHG

The bullets are bent...WTF are you talking about? Oh...you've only seen it from the side. Try looking at the jacket from the top down.

Again..they've recreated what happen on several occassions.

houghtam
11-12-2013, 08:52 PM
The bullets are bent...WTF are you talking about? Oh...you've only seen it from the side. Try looking at the jacket from the top down.

Again..they've recreated what happen on several occassions.

This. It's called yaw. Look into it, gaff.

I'm yawning already.

I wonder if there's ever been anything that ever happened that wasn't a conspiracy? Kennedy assassination? Conspiracy. 9/11? Conspiracy. Boston bombing? False flag. Moon landing? Filmed in a studio. A long train with military vehicles on it? Obama's working on establishing a police state. MRAPs being ordered? See above. Ammunition being ordered? Also see above.

But the funny thing is, not only would there have to be literally thousands of people in league with one another to make this stuff happen, they're also apparently the most inept people ever with how much "evidence" they've left behind. It's ridiculous. The only thing I find more pathetic than people who can never take anything at face value, like gaff, are people who try to profit off other people's tragedies...like gaff.

L.A. BRONCOS FAN
11-12-2013, 09:51 PM
No, not a book. E-v-i-d-e-n-c-e.

Evidence - that stuff that's so woefully absent in the "Oswald acted alone" theory.

Garcia Bronco
11-12-2013, 10:15 PM
Evidence - that stuff that's so woefully absent in the "Oswald acted alone" theory.

There is no other (snicker) evidence except for the bullets and gun he used, and the film showing that it came from where he was, and his own writings that he wanted to kill Kennedy. Other than that....

Pony Boy
11-13-2013, 10:11 AM
No, not a book. E-v-i-d-e-n-c-e.

33171

W*GS
11-13-2013, 11:01 AM
http://www.skeptic.com/magazine/images/magv18n03_cover.jpg

mhgaffney
11-13-2013, 11:17 AM
The bullets are bent...WTF are you talking about? Oh...you've only seen it from the side. Try looking at the jacket from the top down.

Again..they've recreated what happen on several occassions.

Bent? Surely you jest.

Here's a photo from the Warren Commission Report -- of the magic bullet that supposedly passed through JFK and Connally. It's nearly pristine.

Bullets that hit bony tissue are ALWAYS badly deformed. As the man sad, "This dog don' hunt.."

MHG

mhgaffney
11-13-2013, 11:19 AM
The magic bullet was found laying on a stretcher at Parkland hospital - -an obvious case of planted evidence.

Incidentally, Oswald tested negative for gunpowder -- meaning he had not fired a weapon that day.

For more on the magic bullet...
http://www.history-matters.com/essays/frameup/EvenMoreMagical/EvenMoreMagical.htm

DenverBrit
11-13-2013, 03:22 PM
The magic bullet was found laying on a stretcher at Parkland hospital - -an obvious case of planted evidence.

Incidentally, Oswald tested negative for gunpowder -- meaning he had not fired a weapon that day.

For more on the magic bullet...
http://www.history-matters.com/essays/frameup/EvenMoreMagical/EvenMoreMagical.htm

Bull****!!

Miss I.
11-13-2013, 03:51 PM
Hey did anyone see the PBS 2 part series on the life of JFK? I think it's pretty interesting. I haven't gotten to his death yet, but I've always found the story of his life and the contributions he tried to make, the changes he enacted as he lived interesting. I also am enjoying that to some degree, though clearly a pro-Kennedy stance, they do talk about some of his flaws as a a leader and a person (not just his affairs). I also find the discussion of the political workings interesting because it's clear that none of that has really changed. Technology has changed, but not Politicians. ;D But anyway, I find his life and life works more fascinating then the death. I think the best way to honor him is to continue the good things he enacted and fix the things not such a great legacy. Anyway, the PBS thing is interesting, if a bit glossy. still better than one of those made for TV movies starring ExMrs Cruise, which focus on the celebrity bit, not his actual ideology.

Oh just noticed, Nova on PBS is doing an episode tonight on applying forensics of today to the assassination. That might be worth a watch given the topic of the thread.

Rohirrim
11-13-2013, 04:57 PM
Hey did anyone see the PBS 2 part series on the life of JFK? I think it's pretty interesting. I haven't gotten to his death yet, but I've always found the story of his life and the contributions he tried to make, the changes he enacted as he lived interesting. I also am enjoying that to some degree, though clearly a pro-Kennedy stance, they do talk about some of his flaws as a a leader and a person (not just his affairs). I also find the discussion of the political workings interesting because it's clear that none of that has really changed. Technology has changed, but not Politicians. ;D But anyway, I find his life and life works more fascinating then the death. I think the best way to honor him is to continue the good things he enacted and fix the things not such a great legacy. Anyway, the PBS thing is interesting, if a bit glossy. still better than one of those made for TV movies starring ExMrs Cruise, which focus on the celebrity bit, not his actual ideology.

Oh just noticed, Nova on PBS is doing an episode tonight on applying forensics of today to the assassination. That might be worth a watch given the topic of the thread.

I thought some stuff didn't add up. I never realized how messed up he was physically. As they report it, he was pretty much in pain his whole adult life. How much fooling around does a guy like that do? Especially when he's got a back injury? Maybe that part of his life is more legend than fact?

Requiem
11-13-2013, 05:25 PM
Kennedy was pretty much a ginger cripple, much like myself. Happens to the best of us.

mhgaffney
11-13-2013, 05:27 PM
Oswald’s Paraffin Test

A few hours after the assassination, Oswald underwent a test that was routinely carried out on those suspected of having fired a gun. Liquid paraffin wax was spread on his hands and his right cheek. When hardened, the paraffin wax would extract from deep in the pores of his skin any fine residues given off by the firing of a gun, even if he had washed his skin in the meantime.

Barium and antimony, which are found in gunpowder residues, are also found in several common substances such as printing ink, which Oswald certainly had handled on the morning of the assassination. The presence of these substances is not sufficient evidence of having fired a gun, but their absence is sufficient evidence of having not fired a gun.

In other words:
Firing a gun would deposit barium and antimony on parts of the skin close to the gun.

If barium and antimony were found on Oswald’s skin, they may have been deposited by the firing of a gun. But they may instead have been deposited by other means: for example, the handling of books.

If barium and antimony were not found on Oswald’s skin, he almost certainly did not fire a gun.

Three Tests Proved Oswald’s Innocence

Test 1: Spectrographic Analysis

Oswald’s paraffin casts were subjected to two analyses. Spectrographic analysis, the method normally used by the police, showed evidence of barium and antimony on Oswald's hands, but not on his cheek.4

Test 2: Neutron Activation Analysis on Oswald

Spectrographic analysis was considered sufficiently reliable for criminal investigations, but in this case a more incisive test was also used. Neutron activation analysis, which is capable of identifying the presence of substances in quantities much too small to be captured by spectrographic analysis, also showed no incriminating quantities of residues on Oswald’s cheek.5 The result was reported in an internal Warren Commission memo: “At best, the analysis shows that Oswald may have fired a pistol, although this is by no means certain. … There is no basis for concluding that he also fired a rifle.”6

Test 3: Controlled Neutron Activation Analysis

In order to check the validity of the neutron activation analysis of Oswald’s paraffin casts, a controlled test was made. Seven marksmen fired a rifle of the same type as that found on the sixth floor. The standard paraffin test was administered, and the paraffin casts were subjected to neutron activation analysis. All seven subjects showed substantial amounts of barium and antimony on their hands and, more importantly, on their cheeks.7

The absence of significant quantities of residues on Oswald’s cheek meant that he almost certainly had not fired a rifle that day.


http://22november1963.org.uk/oswald-rifle-and-paraffin-tests

barryr
11-13-2013, 06:13 PM
If true there were 2 other attempts on Kennedy, in Chicago and I think Miami, or Tampa before Dallas, then I think it shows that either Oswald didn't act alone or was set up somehow. There is so much conflicting info. about this, so hard to know. But with what I see what our government does and tries to do, it would not surprise me in the least that there was more to the killing of Kennedy than just some weirdo. I mean Oswald sets all this up to kill Kennedy, plans ahead of time, just happens to get a job at a place where Kennedy's route is going, yet his get away plan looks like amateur hour. It just doesn't add up to me. Bobby Kennedy's killing also has questions IMO, not to mention MLK's killing as well. They all seem just too quick and easy to explain away.

houghtam
11-14-2013, 03:23 AM
If true there were 2 other attempts on Kennedy, in Chicago and I think Miami, or Tampa before Dallas, then I think it shows that either Oswald didn't act alone or was set up somehow. There is so much conflicting info. about this, so hard to know. But with what I see what our government does and tries to do, it would not surprise me in the least that there was more to the killing of Kennedy than just some weirdo. I mean Oswald sets all this up to kill Kennedy, plans ahead of time, just happens to get a job at a place where Kennedy's route is going, yet his get away plan looks like amateur hour. It just doesn't add up to me. Bobby Kennedy's killing also has questions IMO, not to mention MLK's killing as well. They all seem just too quick and easy to explain away.

Have you been paying attention to the Aaron Hernandez story?

W*GS
11-14-2013, 07:12 AM
Bent? Surely you jest.

Here's a photo from the Warren Commission Report -- of the magic bullet that supposedly passed through JFK and Connally. It's nearly pristine.

No, it's not.

orangeatheist
11-14-2013, 09:31 AM
There just isn't a conspiracy theory that doesn't get the juices flowing down Gaffe's leg, is there?

How 'bout the moon landing, Gaffe? Was that faked by NASA?

Area 51? Still hiding that UFO so we can learn from its technology to make iPods?

That 12th planet still orbiting around out there?

Easter Island still evidence of Lumeria?

Hilarious!

orangeatheist
11-14-2013, 09:33 AM
Bent? Surely you jest.

Here's a photo from the Warren Commission Report -- of the magic bullet that supposedly passed through JFK and Connally. It's nearly pristine.

Bullets that hit bony tissue are ALWAYS badly deformed. As the man sad, "This dog don' hunt.."

MHG

Guess you missed that NOVA episode last night.

Why is this troll still allowed here?

W*GS
11-14-2013, 09:44 AM
Guess you missed that NOVA episode last night.

PBS and Nova and all the people on the show are part of it. They're all sleeping dupes. Only gaffe has the Truth.

Why is this troll still allowed here?

Because we're his only friends.

mhgaffney
11-14-2013, 10:06 AM
Notice the total silence about the paraffin test - which confirmed that Oswald never fired a gun.

Therefor, could not have done what they say he did.

Therefor, someone else did the hit.

Therefor, the official story is a lie.

MHG

mhgaffney
11-14-2013, 10:12 AM
What a bunch of gutless wimps.

DenverBrit
11-14-2013, 10:27 AM
Notice the total silence about the paraffin test - which confirmed that Oswald never fired a gun.

Therefor, could not have done what they say he did.

Therefor, someone else did the hit.

Therefor, the official story is a lie.

MHG

That's because your lying again.

Oswald tested POSITIVE for residue on his hands... conspiracy nuts like you deny the facts as it doesn't 'fit' the conspiracy. They claim the 'positive' was a response to printers ink.

It's another thermite claim, ignoring the facts in favor of fantasy.

Oswald may well have been a dupe, but flat out lying about the evidence is typical of you.

Garcia Bronco
11-14-2013, 10:33 AM
Bent? Surely you jest.

Here's a photo from the Warren Commission Report -- of the magic bullet that supposedly passed through JFK and Connally. It's nearly pristine.

Bullets that hit bony tissue are ALWAYS badly deformed. As the man sad, "This dog don' hunt.."

MHG

Bony tissue? It's either bone or its tissue. And like I said...look at the bullet form the jacket down. Even your picture shows its bent. Also in the recreation tests they've done...the bullets fired are also bent the same way.

W*GS
11-14-2013, 11:04 AM
gaffe, from what direction did the fatal head shot come?

Behind Kennedy, in front, or from the side?

mhgaffney
11-14-2013, 01:38 PM
That's because your lying again.

Oswald tested POSITIVE for residue on his hands... conspiracy nuts like you deny the facts as it doesn't 'fit' the conspiracy. They claim the 'positive' was a response to printers ink.

It's another thermite claim, ignoring the facts in favor of fantasy.

Oswald may well have been a dupe, but flat out lying about the evidence is typical of you.

Any use of a firearm by Oswald would have given a positive paraffin test.

mhgaffney
11-14-2013, 01:42 PM
Bony tissue? It's either bone or its tissue. And like I said...look at the bullet form the jacket down. Even your picture shows its bent. Also in the recreation tests they've done...the bullets fired are also bent the same way.

Here is what a bullet looks like if you fire it into a human body.

mhgaffney
11-14-2013, 01:45 PM
JFK was in a crossfire. He was hit in the throat, in the back, and in the head -- from the grassy knoll.

No way to know if he would have survived the first two hits. No way did he survive the head shot. It entered at the right front temple -- and exited via the back of his head.

There were at least 3 shooters.

MHG

mhgaffney
11-14-2013, 01:47 PM
33171

FYI, there is no statute of limitation for murder.

In this case, the execution of a standing president in broad daylight before the whole world.

W*GS
11-14-2013, 02:30 PM
JFK was in a crossfire. He was hit in the throat, in the back, and in the head -- from the grassy knoll.

So how come his skull fractures indicate that the shot came from behind?

DenverBrit
11-14-2013, 04:05 PM
Any use of a firearm by Oswald would have given a positive paraffin test.

Which it did.

I see your 'iggy' is broken. :giggle:

Garcia Bronco
11-14-2013, 05:25 PM
JFK was in a crossfire. He was hit in the throat, in the back, and in the head -- from the grassy knoll.

No way to know if he would have survived the first two hits. No way did he survive the head shot. It entered at the right front temple -- and exited via the back of his head.

There were at least 3 shooters.

MHG

You're mental. They digitized the Z Film, hommie. They can literally see the hit him from behind. Oswalds first shot went through a sign on a stop light before Kennedy even made the turn.

barryr
11-15-2013, 03:31 AM
Have you been paying attention to the Aaron Hernandez story?

LOL, your retorts just get worse and worse. Aaron Hernandez? LOL

mhgaffney
11-15-2013, 01:06 PM
You're mental. They digitized the Z Film, hommie. They can literally see the hit him from behind. Oswalds first shot went through a sign on a stop light before Kennedy even made the turn.

You have no clue what you are talking about.

Let's look at the Zapruder film -- the key part -- about 39 seconds long.

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

You can see JFK wave to the crowd -- then disappears behind a traffic sign. Just as he emerges he flings his arms up to his throat -- indicating he has been hit. This was the throat shot.

It's not clear when he gets hit in the back. But you can clearly see the head shot. The bullet entered his right front temple -- and blew out the back of his head.

The exit wound is always much larger than the entry wound.

After the head shot -- Jackie Kennedy climbs out onto the rear of the car in an effort to retrieve parts of JFK's brain -- an instinctive reaction -- but futile.

MHG

W*GS
11-15-2013, 03:45 PM
But you can clearly see the head shot. The bullet entered his right front temple -- and blew out the back of his head.

"Right front temple"?

How come the pattern of skull fractures shows the fatal shot came from behind?

How come his tissue was splattered forward into the car and on to the occupants seated in front of him?

mhgaffney
11-16-2013, 11:18 AM
"Right front temple"?

How come the pattern of skull fractures shows the fatal shot came from behind?

How come his tissue was splattered forward into the car and on to the occupants seated in front of him?

It doesn't.

The back of JFK's skull was blown out to the rear. The hole in front was small.

As noted, Jackie climbed back onto the rear of the car in an instinctive effort to retrieve JFK's brains.

In the Zapruder film -- you can see JFK's head jerk backward -- which would be impossible if he was hit from the rear.

W*GS
11-16-2013, 02:31 PM
The back of JFK's skull was blown out to the rear. The hole in front was small.

As noted, Jackie climbed back onto the rear of the car in an instinctive effort to retrieve JFK's brains.

In the Zapruder film -- you can see JFK's head jerk backward -- which would be impossible if he was hit from the rear.

Your 1st and 3rd paragraphs completely contradict the physical evidence.

Your 2nd paragraph doesn't mean anything in terms of the direction of the fatal shot.

You're just illustrating that you don't know anything about the assassination.

slick7
11-16-2013, 02:45 PM
Your 1st and 3rd paragraphs completely contradict the physical evidence.

Your 2nd paragraph doesn't mean anything in terms of the direction of the fatal shot.

You're just illustrating that you don't know anything about the assassination.

That last shot on the Zapruder film looks to me like Kennedy got shot in the face blowing his brains out the back of his skull. However, I'm no expert.

I've always thought there was more than one gunman involved, but I didn't believe it was some huge conspiracy, moreso that someone wanted Kennedy dead, and that Ruby's actions weren't the act of a patriot who was pissed off that someone shot the president. Ruby was sent to shut Oswald up.

W*GS
11-16-2013, 02:54 PM
That last shot on the Zapruder film looks to me like Kennedy got shot in the face blowing his brains out the back of his skull. However, I'm no expert.

So your opinions don't really mean much. What it "looks like" isn't what happened.

I've always thought there was more than one gunman involved, but I didn't believe it was some huge conspiracy, moreso that someone wanted Kennedy dead, and that Ruby's actions weren't the act of a patriot who was pissed off that someone shot the president. Ruby was sent to shut Oswald up.

Some people just can't accept that a loser could actually kill the President. It bothers them so much that they have to make up a "better" death for JFK - one that is more "suitable" for the horrific nature of his murder.

Thus the conspiracy theories.

mhgaffney
11-17-2013, 02:40 PM
Your 1st and 3rd paragraphs completely contradict the physical evidence.

Your 2nd paragraph doesn't mean anything in terms of the direction of the fatal shot.

You're just illustrating that you don't know anything about the assassination.

Notice that W*gs doesn't specify which physical evidence -- because he can't. He doesn't have a clue what he's talking about. He's a shill and comes here simply to insult and smear...

The evidence was strong even in the 1970s -- and has gotten much stronger since. JFK was murdered by the financial elite -- because of JFK's change of heart/mind after the Cuban missile crisis.

He went from a cold warrior to a peacemaker. This was not acceptable to the US war machine and its corporate-banker masters.
MHG

W*GS
11-17-2013, 06:43 PM
Notice that W*gs doesn't specify which physical evidence -- because he can't.

The skull fracturing indicates that the fatal shot came from the rear.

The presence of skull fragments and brain matter sprayed forward into the car also indicates a shot from the rear.

JFK's entire upper body spasmed because of the firing of the the nerves controlling his back muscles due to the shockwave of the bullet passing through his head from the rear.

He doesn't have a clue what he's talking about.

You just described yourself, on many many subjects.

mhgaffney
11-18-2013, 03:21 PM
Total bull shyte.

Fracturing? Where's your evidence? You don't have any.

JFK's brains splattered in all directions. No surprise there.

As for JFK's head jerk backwards -- this was the result of the kinetic energy from the bullet. Simple physics.

W*GS
11-18-2013, 04:26 PM
Total bull shyte.

Fracturing? Where's your evidence? You don't have any.

JFK's brains splattered in all directions. No surprise there.

As for JFK's head jerk backwards -- this was the result of the kinetic energy from the bullet. Simple physics.

Watch this:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/tech/cold-case-jfk.html

jhat01
11-18-2013, 04:43 PM
Wasn't there some talk about the SS Agent in the follow car popping off the head shot? Maybe an accidental discharge? The SS sure acted strange in the autopsy room.

mhgaffney
11-18-2013, 05:58 PM
The NOVA film fails on many counts.

The film repeats the cover story that Oswald was a communist. Not true. He was a US intelligence asset -- probably CIA. While in the service Oswald had worked at a top secret US military base in Japan -- connected with the U2 spy plane.

The NOVA claims that JFK's throat wound was an exit wound. Not true. All of the doctors at Parkland Hospital in Dallas understood this was an entry wound.

NOVA claims that witnesses heard a shot from the book depository. NOVA fails to mention that most of the witnesses reported a shot from the grassy knoll.

more to come...

Bronco Yoda
11-18-2013, 06:07 PM
What I find interesting is that both wounds were from different calibers. The head matching up to a smaller .223 hollow point.

Rohirrim
11-19-2013, 05:41 AM
The Nova forensic argument I find definitive. Follow the science, not the conjecture.

W*GS
11-19-2013, 06:48 AM
Typical gaffe. Baseless assertions.

mhgaffney
11-19-2013, 09:20 AM
What I find interesting is that both wounds were from different calibers. The head matching up to a smaller .223 hollow point.

Good point. James Files says he fired one shot from the grassy knoll -- a 22 caliber from a speedball with a scope - -which he says he received from his CIA handler David Atlee Phillips...

http://www.amazon.com/I-Shot-JFK-Shocking-Truth/dp/B00AMHFQXM/ref=sr_1_1?s=movies-tv&ie=UTF8&qid=1384878035&sr=1-1&keywords=i+shot+JFK

Garcia Bronco
11-19-2013, 09:56 AM
Good point. James Files says he fired one shot from the grassy knoll -- a 22 caliber from a speedball with a scope - -which he says he received from his CIA handler David Atlee Phillips...

http://www.amazon.com/I-Shot-JFK-Shocking-Truth/dp/B00AMHFQXM/ref=sr_1_1?s=movies-tv&ie=UTF8&qid=1384878035&sr=1-1&keywords=i+shot+JFK

Except there was no shot fired from the grass. You may be on grass and your buddy James, but at no time did a 22 cal shot hit Kennedy, nor was one fired.

Sorry.

mhgaffney
11-19-2013, 11:35 AM
Except there was no shot fired from the grass. You may be on grass and your buddy James, but at no time did a 22 cal shot hit Kennedy, nor was one fired.

Sorry.

How do you know this? Did G-d whisper in your ear?

Rohirrim
11-19-2013, 11:38 AM
Like they said in the NOVA piece, it is extremely difficult to determine where gunshots are coming from, especially in an urban environment. Three witnesses standing on the steps of the school book store depository, directly below the window where Oswald was, claimed the shots came from the grassy knoll. Why? Because the echo from that wall would reach them first. A few said they heard gunshots coming from the railway overpass. It depends where you were standing. In fact, from the hundreds of witnesses came a variety of locations, which is just what you'd expect in an urban environment.

One witness standing directly in front of the grassy knoll said he heard three, very distinct gunshots coming from the depository. If there were shots from the knoll, they would have come from only about twenty feet directly behind him. All the evidence, including three shell casings found next to the sixth floor window of the depository, point to Oswald as the single shooter. The only legitimate question is, was Oswald acting alone or in concert with others? CIA? That's a legitimate question. He said he was a patsy. Why did he say that? Probably just to cover his ass.

mhgaffney
11-19-2013, 11:44 AM
Sorry, I got the name wrong. Files says he used a Remington Fireball...

mhgaffney
11-19-2013, 11:49 AM
for more about the Remington Fireball..
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hCAkkncfJ9Y

mhgaffney
11-19-2013, 12:01 PM
James Douglas (author of JFK and the UNSPEAKABLE)

talks about plausible deniability and the background of the JFK assassination by the CIA:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nwECsq459d4

W*GS
11-19-2013, 01:34 PM
"Reclaiming History: The Assassination of President John F. Kennedy", by Bugliosi.

Until gaffe can address that, he's really got no cred.

Garcia Bronco
11-19-2013, 01:53 PM
How do you know this? Did G-d whisper in your ear?

Because I've seen the physical evidence from the crime. Sorry dude...there was no great conspiracy with 40 armed agents all shooting at JFK. I know it's been difficult on your generation, but not everything is a conspiracy.

Garcia Bronco
11-19-2013, 01:55 PM
Like they said in the NOVA piece, it is extremely difficult to determine where gunshots are coming from, especially in an urban environment. Three witnesses standing on the steps of the school book store depository, directly below the window where Oswald was, claimed the shots came from the grassy knoll. Why? Because the echo from that wall would reach them first. A few said they heard gunshots coming from the railway overpass. It depends where you were standing. In fact, from the hundreds of witnesses came a variety of locations, which is just what you'd expect in an urban environment.

One witness standing directly in front of the grassy knoll said he heard three, very distinct gunshots coming from the depository. If there were shots from the knoll, they would have come from only about twenty feet directly behind him. All the evidence, including three shell casings found next to the sixth floor window of the depository, point to Oswald as the single shooter. The only legitimate question is, was Oswald acting alone or in concert with others? CIA? That's a legitimate question. He said he was a patsy. Why did he say that? Probably just to cover his ass.

Perfectly stated.

Rohirrim
11-19-2013, 02:38 PM
I also wonder about the CIA theory. The leadership of the CIA was still populated with a bunch of OSS guys from WWII who were as strongly anti-communist as JFK was. JFK was also a legitimate WWII naval hero. I think the idea of killing him would have been extremely abhorrent to those guys; a violation of the band of brothers trust.

The Lone Bolt
11-19-2013, 03:35 PM
"Reclaiming History: The Assassination of President John F. Kennedy", by Bugliosi.

Until gaffe can address that, he's really got no cred.

You must not be familiar with Gaffney.

Bugliosi is obviously a CIA disinfo agent. And furthermore everything he claims is "impossible", just because Gaffney says so.

You should know the drill by now.

mhgaffney
11-19-2013, 04:43 PM
I'm familiar with the Bugliosi book. He missed the boat on this issue. He's not the only one who's done this --nor the first. So did Sy Hersh in his JFK book.

You need to check out the Douglas book. If you are too cheap to buy a copy -- watch the talk by Douglas. I posted the link.

MHG

W*GS
11-19-2013, 05:06 PM
I'm familiar with the Bugliosi book. He missed the boat on this issue.

Weak. Very very very very weak.

Your personal dismissal counts for absolutely nothing.

DenverBrit
11-19-2013, 05:18 PM
I'm familiar with the Bugliosi book. He missed the boat on this issue. He's not the only one who's done this --nor the first. So did Sy Hersh in his JFK book.

You need to check out the Douglas book. If you are too cheap to buy a copy -- watch the talk by Douglas. I posted the link.

MHG

http://grumpycatpics.com/pics/26/Everybody-Is-Wrong-Except-Me.jpg

Bronco Yoda
11-19-2013, 06:04 PM
What about the lady in red. The school teacher (shown in the film) that was only 20 feet away as JFK was hit. She came out hours later swearing there were 4 to 6 shots along with someone at the top of the hill behind the low fence. She never changed her story. This person was also seen by the train rail operator from the other side.

And like i said earlier the entry hole in the skull was too small. It was also a hollow point which exploded on impact unlike the shoulder wound which kept going through two people a seat and wrist cleanly. Both (projectiles) bullets were obviously from different kinds of weapons.

mhgaffney
11-20-2013, 11:25 AM
I also wonder about the CIA theory. The leadership of the CIA was still populated with a bunch of OSS guys from WWII who were as strongly anti-communist as JFK was. JFK was also a legitimate WWII naval hero. I think the idea of killing him would have been extremely abhorrent to those guys; a violation of the band of brothers trust.

There is a key part of history -- of which you and the others around here have not understood. Yes, JFK was a cold warrior -- but JFK was changed by the Cuban missile crisis.

He and Khruschev stared into the abyss - -and it changed both of them.

JFK took a turn toward peace -- and ran afoul of the Pentagon, the CIA , Wall Street -- even his own advisers. By the last days he was isolated in his own administration.

Neither Bugliosi nor Hersh covers this key history --

Douglas does cover it very very well. If you are too cheap to buy his book -- check out this excellent address where he lays out the evidence. It's persuasive.
MHG

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nwECsq459d4

W*GS
11-20-2013, 02:31 PM
The CIA and others may not have liked some of JFK's policies. Doesn't mean they killed him.

Geez.

mhgaffney
11-21-2013, 10:32 AM
the US financial elite killed JFK

A half-century after the fatal gunshots in Dallas, it behooves us to reflect upon how far down our nation has slid since the heady days of the early 1960s, when everything seemed possible.

It’s darkly ironic that just last week, Andrew Huszar, a former official at the Federal Reserve, posted an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal apologizing for his role in the Fed’s Quantitative Easing program. The Fed introduced QE after the 2008 meltdown, ostensibly to stimulate the economy and make credit available to Main Street. Apologetics were in order because, as Huszar explains, the program did nothing to help Main Street, but was a continuation of the 2008 bailout hustle. Its real purpose was to save the too-big-to-fails at taxpayer expense.

During the last five years, the Fed handed over $4 trillion to the banksters, who instead of loaning the cash to Americans used it to pump up the stock market and to tidy up their balance sheets (erasing toxic debt incurred through their own wild speculation). The banksters also used the free money to buy Congress, the White House, judges, media outlets, in short, everything they did not already own.

It’s been the greatest transfer of wealth in world history.

Recently, when the Fed announced it would “taper” QE, the markets went crazy. The Fed backed off and now appears trapped. It can’t continue printing unlimited dollars because this is debasing the currency. But it can’t stop either, or interest rates will rise and pop the stock/bond market bubbles.

Obviously, another much worse crisis looms...

Had JFK lived, we would not be in this mess. Extremely bright in economics, JFK was the last president who took on Wall Street. Subsequent presidents have all surrendered. No doubt, this is why JFK was killed - executed in broad daylight.

We won’t save our nation until we reject the lone gunman nonsense and bring his killers to justice. MHG

W*GS
11-21-2013, 10:36 AM
gaffe just won't accept that Oswald, a total loser, shot and killed JFK.

He has to make up all sorts of BS to make JFK's death less pathetic. That's the case with most JFK assassination conspiracists.

Bronco Yoda
11-21-2013, 10:46 AM
"Right front temple"?

How come the pattern of skull fractures shows the fatal shot came from behind?

How come his tissue was splattered forward into the car and on to the occupants seated in front of him?

I tend to think the head shot came from behind as well. There's a photo of the entry wound in the skull. Interestingly enough however the hole is too small for the caliber LHO shot.

mhgaffney
11-21-2013, 10:56 AM
A Classic Lone Kook False Flag Scenario

By Dr Stuart Jeanne Bramhall

Lee Harvey Oswald worked for the CIA (and FBI and Army and most likely Naval Intelligence) from the late fifties when the CIA recruited him from the Marine Corps until his murder on November 24, 1963 by Dallas nightclub owner Jack Ruby. A clear appreciation of Lee Harvey Oswald’s role as an intelligence operative is key to understanding the JFK assassination conspiracy and cover-up. Although more than 20 years old, in my opinion Matthew Smith’s JFK: The Second Plot offers the most comprehensive account of Oswald’s CIA career.

for a review of Smith's book...
http://www.veteranstoday.com/2013/11/12/lee-harvey-oswald-career-cia-operative/

mhgaffney
11-21-2013, 11:01 AM
If Oswald was a commie -- why did the US allow him back into the country after he defected to Russia?

How dod he get a security clearance and why did he work at a top secret US spy base in Japan?

It is also known that Oswald owned a camera -- not commercially available -- and the type used by intelligence agents.

And how did the report about Oswald reach the press in New Zealand EVEN BEFORE Oswald had been indicted in Dallas? The only possible answer is that the story was preplanned and ready to go...



There are many many reasons to think Oswald was not the person we have been

W*GS
11-21-2013, 11:17 AM
You're proving my point, gaffe.

A 4th-rate loser cannot kill the President, all by himself. That's just not right or proper or understandable.

There *had* to have been a vast conspiracy of powerful and dark forces, and/or Oswald had to be a super-badass secret agent of the CIA/KGB/Mossad/Mafia/MIC/TLC...

For some reason, that makes seeing JFK's brains splatter all over the place more honorable and meaningful. But the ideas of the conspiracists just aren't true.

mhgaffney
11-21-2013, 11:19 AM
Gerald Celente's interview with John Connally

Shortly before his death Connally requested the interview -- and Celente flew down to Dallas for the occasion. The two men revisited Dealey Plaza -- and discussed the events of Nov 22, 1963.

According to Celente, one point Connally turned to him and said in very clear language -- looked him straight in the eye and said, ‘You don’t have a clue what’s going on and neither do the American people because if they did there would be a revolution in this country.’”

Listening to Connally describe the shooting of JFK -- it's clear that the Texas governor was shot AFTER JFK's head shot -- which of course destroys the single bullet theory.
http://www.kingworldnews.com/kingworldnews/Broadcast/Entries/2013/11/20_Gerald_Celente.html

mhgaffney
11-21-2013, 11:36 AM
Oswald's camera was not commercially available. It was half the size of a pack of cigarettes...
http://jfk.hood.edu/Collection/Weisberg%20Subject%20Index%20Files/O%20Disk/Oswald%20Lee%20Harvey%20Property/Item%2002.pdf

mhgaffney
11-21-2013, 11:39 AM
E Howard Hunt describes his role in JFK murder in deathbed confession to his son...
http://noliesradio.org/archives/72262

Bronco Yoda
11-21-2013, 12:04 PM
The majority of Americans do not believe the Warren Commission & believe that Oswald did not act alone.

gunns
11-21-2013, 10:36 PM
This is true, most people don't believe it. Many say that the report was the beginning of the nation's mistrust in the government. Those of my generation have had so many years to listen to the reports, the conspiracy theories, and many of us, not understanding physics often didn't know what to think. My thoughts lent to Lyndon Johnson being involved, but I also came to realize it was because I disliked the man so much. I would like to know the truth, but in all reality what can anyone do about the past.

What I do know is as a 9 year old experiencing a shocking day and weekend and seeing the normally wonderful world I lived in become unreal and morose....and feeling so sorry for a girl and little boy who had lost their father.

Smiling Assassin27
11-22-2013, 01:48 PM
Read what may be the worst book I've read on JFK this week--'JFK, Conservative' by Ira Stoll. Unadulterated crapola. That JFK was conservative in any way is a position out of touch with reality. When historians turn into hagiographers, the product suffers.

Smiling Assassin27
11-22-2013, 01:51 PM
This is true, most people don't believe it. Many say that the report was the beginning of the nation's mistrust in the government. Those of my generation have had so many years to listen to the reports, the conspiracy theories, and many of us, not understanding physics often didn't know what to think. My thoughts lent to Lyndon Johnson being involved, but I also came to realize it was because I disliked the man so much. I would like to know the truth, but in all reality what can anyone do about the past.

What I do know is as a 9 year old experiencing a shocking day and weekend and seeing the normally wonderful world I lived in become unreal and morose....and feeling so sorry for a girl and little boy who had lost their father.

Reading this over the weekend on recommendation from a buddy.

http://disinfo.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/Man-Who-Killed-Kennedy-9781626363137.jpg

Pony Boy
11-22-2013, 02:40 PM
The majority of Americans do not believe the Warren Commission & believe that Oswald did not act alone.



If we are just pulling rabbits out a hat!

My bet would be a joint effort by the Mafia and Castro that had mutual hate the Kennedy's. Bobby Kennedy being next on the hit list for efforts to crack down on organized crime.

Smiling Assassin27
11-22-2013, 02:47 PM
Kinda haunting:

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/IVNKNz-lc6k" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

gunns
11-22-2013, 03:19 PM
Reading this over the weekend on recommendation from a buddy.

http://disinfo.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/Man-Who-Killed-Kennedy-9781626363137.jpg

Thank you, I'll have to get it. Tell me one thing though as you are reading it. Does it indicate that it had anything to do with Kennedy wanting to pull out of Vietnam?

It's just amazing the memories I have of that time. It was devastating, even for a 9 year old. The whole world stopped. Adults were crying and eyes were glued to the TV for 4 days. Watching another man get shot, this time on live TV was scary. Watching a 3 year old salute his father was heartbreaking. Watching his sister reach under the flag and touch her fathers casket also heartbreaking. Just a mind boggling time that was difficult to grasp.

mhgaffney
11-22-2013, 04:59 PM
The Kennedy Assassination : 50 Years Later

By Paul Craig Roberts

November 22, 2013 "Information Clearing House - November 22, 2013, is the 50th anniversary of the assassination of President John F. Kennedy. The true story of JFK’s murder has never been officially admitted, although the conclusion that JFK was murdered by a plot involving the Secret Service, the CIA, and the Joint Chiefs of Staff has been well established by years of research, such as that provided by James W. Douglass in his book, JFK And The Unspeakable, published by Simon & Schuster in 2008. Ignore Douglass’ interest in the Trappist monk Thomas Merton and Merton’s prediction and focus on the heavily documented research that Douglass provides.

Or just turn to the contemporary films, taken by tourists watching JFK’s motorcade that are available on YouTube, which show clearly the Secret Service pulled from President Kennedy’s limo just prior to his assassination, and the Zapruder film that shows the killing shot to have come from President Kennedy’s right front, blowing off the back of his head, not from the rear as postulated in the Warren Commission Report, which would have pushed his head forward, not rearward.

I am not going to write about the assassination to the extent that the massive information permits. Those who want to know already know. Those who cannot face the music will never be able to confront the facts regardless of what I or anyone else writes or reveals.

To briefly review, the facts are conclusive that JFK was on terrible terms with the CIA and the Joint Chiefs. He had refused to support the CIA organized Bay of Pigs invasion of Cuba. He had rejected the Joint Chiefs’ “Operation Northwoods,” a plan to commit real and faked acts of violence against Americans, blame Castro and use the false flag events to bring regime change to Cuba. He had rejected the Joint Chiefs case that the Soviet Union should be attacked while the US held the advantage and before the Soviets could develop delivery systems for nuclear weapons. He had indicated that after his reelection he was going to pull US troops out of Vietnam and that he was going to break the CIA into a thousand pieces. He had aroused suspicion by working behind the scenes with Khrushchev to defuse the Cuban Missile Crisis, leading to claims that he was “soft on communism.” The CIA and Joint Chiefs’ belief that JFK was an unreliable ally in the war against communism spread into the Secret Service.

It has been established that the original autopsy of JFK’s fatal head wound was discarded and a faked one substituted in order to support the official story that Oswald shot JFK from behind. FBI director J. Edgar Hoover and President Johnson knew that Oswald was the CIA’s patsy, but they also understood, as did members of the Warren Commission, that to let the true story out would cause Americans to lose confidence in their own government at the height of the Cold War.

Robert Kennedy knew what had happened. He was on his way to being elected president and to holding the plotters accountable for the murder of his brother when the CIA assassinated him. A distinguished journalist, who was standing behind Robert Kennedy at the time of his assassination, told me that the killing shots came from behind past his ear. He submitted his report to the FBI and was never contacted.

Acoustic experts have conclusively demonstrated that more shots were fired than can be accounted for by Sirhan Sirhan’s pistol and that the sounds indicate two different calibers of firearms.

I never cease to be amazed by the gullibility of Americans, who know nothing about either event, but who confidently dismiss the factual evidence provided by experts and historians on the basis of their naive belief that “the government wouldn’t lie about such important events” or “someone would have talked.” What good would it do if someone talked when the gullible won’t believe hard evidence?


Secret Service pulled from JFK’s limo
http://www.lewrockwell.com/2013/11/james-huang/must-watch-video/

Zapruder film
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ufvmHYqfdbU

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1q91RZko5Gw

James W. Douglass, JFK and the Unspeakable, Simon & Schuster, 2008

Operation Northwoods: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Northwoods

Paul Craig Roberts was Assistant Secretary of the Treasury for Economic Policy and associate editor of the Wall Street Journal. He was columnist for Business Week, Scripps Howard News

W*GS
11-22-2013, 05:44 PM
[...]and the Zapruder film that shows the killing shot to have come from President Kennedy’s right front, blowing off the back of his head[...]

Bull****.

The back of Kennedy's head was not blown off.

You're a ****ing liar, gaffe. So is Roberts.

Requiem
11-22-2013, 05:46 PM
You don't really know the truth either, W*GS.

W*GS
11-22-2013, 06:40 PM
You don't really know the truth either, W*GS.

One doesn't need to know exactly what happened perfectly to detect a giant load of horse**** coming from gaffe and those whom he serves as bukkake boy.

mhgaffney
11-24-2013, 10:59 AM
the shill has spoken.

it must be so.

Dr. Broncenstein
11-24-2013, 01:07 PM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eqzJQE8LYrQ&feature=youtube_gdata_player

Im no forensic analyst but I can see on the Zapruder film the right front of JFK's skull blown open. That is an exit wound. Full metal jacket bullets tend not to cause that type of violent expansion. Seems like a completely different type of round than the bullet that traversed the president's superior thorax, traveling through the governor, and found intact with minimal damage. It seems like common sense to me that the headshot was a hollow point or similar round. It also seems like common sense to me that a hollow point round would have expanded and caused a devastating exit wound on the anterior chest or neck of the president. I dont understand how anyone with a basic concet of terminal ballistic effects can think otherwise. Call me a conspiracy theorist, but those were two markedly different bullets.

alkemical
11-24-2013, 01:26 PM
I was thinking about "conspiracy":

Did every german citizen conspire to knowingly terminate the millions that perished? How what or why enabled that to happen?

mhgaffney
11-24-2013, 08:30 PM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eqzJQE8LYrQ&feature=youtube_gdata_player

Im no forensic analyst but I can see on the Zapruder film the right front of JFK's skull blown open. That is an exit wound. Full metal jacket bullets tend not to cause that type of violent expansion. Seems like a completely different type of round than the bullet that traversed the president's superior thorax, traveling through the governor, and found intact with minimal damage. It seems like common sense to me that the headshot was a hollow point or similar round. It also seems like common sense to me that a hollow point round would have expanded and caused a devastating exit wound on the anterior chest or neck of the president. I dont understand how anyone with a basic concet of terminal ballistic effects can think otherwise. Call me a conspiracy theorist, but those were two markedly different bullets.

James Files says he fired one shot at JFK from the grassy knoll -- using a Remington fireball -- with scope. He says he used a mercury bullet -- which would explain the huge hole in the back of JFK's head.

That's a 22 caliber shell.

Back in the 1990s a former FBI agent began proceedings to exhume JFK's remains to examine the skull. If mercury was used it should still be in evidence. The agent came down with a very aggressive cancer and was dead in a matter of weeks -- before he succeeded in procuring a court order.

Needless to say, his mysterious death has raised questions.

The small size of the hole in JFK's right temple establishes the fact it was an entry wound. This was the conclusion of the doctors at Parkland hospital. MHG

W*GS
11-24-2013, 09:10 PM
James Files says he fired one shot at JFK from the grassy knoll -- using a Remington fireball -- with scope. He says he used a mercury bullet -- which would explain the huge hole in the back of JFK's head.

There was no huge hole in the back of JFK's head. That was the entry of Oswald's 3rd round.

The small size of the hole in JFK's right temple establishes the fact it was an entry wound. This was the conclusion of the doctors at Parkland hospital. MHG

There was no "small" hole in JFK's right temple.

Goddamn, but you're a ****ing gratuitous liar.

Dr. Broncenstein
11-24-2013, 10:58 PM
James Files says he fired one shot at JFK from the grassy knoll -- using a Remington fireball -- with scope. He says he used a mercury bullet -- which would explain the huge hole in the back of JFK's head.

That's a 22 caliber shell.

Back in the 1990s a former FBI agent began proceedings to exhume JFK's remains to examine the skull. If mercury was used it should still be in evidence. The agent came down with a very aggressive cancer and was dead in a matter of weeks -- before he succeeded in procuring a court order.

Needless to say, his mysterious death has raised questions.

The small size of the hole in JFK's right temple establishes the fact it was an entry wound. This was the conclusion of the doctors at Parkland hospital. MHG

You must be blind. The Zapruper film shows his right temporal skull exploding in possibly the most graphic fashion imaginable. That is not an entrance wound, nor did it leave a "small hole."

The point in which the president becomes initially wounded causes a visible and simultaneous pain reflex by both the president and the governor. JFK's anterior neck exit wound was so insignificant that a surgical tracheostomy obscured it. The governor's wounds caused by the same shot were relatively insignificant as well, despite passing through two people and glancing off vertebrae/ribs/radius. There is no way the same type of bullet that caused the initial wounds was similar to the one that caused JFK's temporal scalp to violently explode. The entire anterior neck would have similarly exploded.

mhgaffney
11-25-2013, 03:08 PM
You must be blind. The Zapruper film shows his right temporal skull exploding in possibly the most graphic fashion imaginable. That is not an entrance wound, nor did it leave a "small hole."

The point in which the president becomes initially wounded causes a visible and simultaneous pain reflex by both the president and the governor. JFK's anterior neck exit wound was so insignificant that a surgical tracheostomy obscured it. The governor's wounds caused by the same shot were relatively insignificant as well, despite passing through two people and glancing off vertebrae/ribs/radius. There is no way the same type of bullet that caused the initial wounds was similar to the one that caused JFK's temporal scalp to violently explode. The entire anterior neck would have similarly exploded.

The throat wound was not an exit wound - it was an entry wound. One of the surgeons at Parkland Hospital later wrote a book in 1992 about this -- but it received almost no media attention.

Here's the book -- available at amazon.
http://www.amazon.com/JFK-Has-Been-Shot-Parkland/dp/B00F9ER2GM

mhgaffney
11-25-2013, 03:11 PM
There was no huge hole in the back of JFK's head. That was the entry of Oswald's 3rd round.



There was no "small" hole in JFK's right temple.

Goddamn, but you're a ****ing gratuitous liar.

Check out the photos taken at Parkland Hospital. They clearly show the terrible wound at the back of JFK's head. This was no entry wound.

http://www.celebritymorgue.com/jfk/jfk-autopsy.html

mhgaffney
11-25-2013, 05:11 PM
Here's the reissued 1992 book about what the doctors at Parkland Hospital in Dallas saw on the day of the assassination.

Written by one of them, Dr Charles Crenshaw.

These emergency room doctors were the first medical professionals to see JFK and examine JFK after the shooting. They had al seen gunshot wounds -- and knew an entry wound when they saw one.

All of them recognized JFK's throat wound as an entry wound. Yet, their testimony was not included in the Warren Commission Report. The answer why not? is obvious. Their testimony would haver exposed the official story for what it was -- a lie.

The doctors at Parkland were warned to never speak about what they had seen. They feared for their lives if they told what they knew. But one of them spoke out anyway. MHG

W*GS
11-25-2013, 07:01 PM
Check out the photos taken at Parkland Hospital. They clearly show the terrible wound at the back of JFK's head. This was no entry wound.

Bull****.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/1/16/JFK_skull_trajectory.jpg

mhgaffney
11-26-2013, 11:26 AM
The jerks think they know more than the emergency room doctors who examined JFK.

Some chutzpah.

It's a new low -- even for the OM.

W*GS
11-26-2013, 12:28 PM
The jerks think they know more than the emergency room doctors who examined JFK.

There was no entry wound to JFK's head from the front, and the back of his head wasn't blown apart.

The facts show you wrong. No matter how much lame name-calling you engage in.

mhgaffney
11-26-2013, 04:20 PM
There was no entry wound to JFK's head from the front, and the back of his head wasn't blown apart.

The facts show you wrong. No matter how much lame name-calling you engage in.

Dr Crenshaw was in the emergency room at Parkland Hospital -- and says the wound in JFK's throat was an entry wound.

W*gs thinks he knows better than the doctor.

This is the sort of arrogant idiocy that has made our nation the laughing stock of the world -- and despised. MHG

Requiem
11-26-2013, 04:27 PM
If only we could turn back time. . .

DenverBrit
11-26-2013, 04:45 PM
Dr Crenshaw was in the emergency room at Parkland Hospital -- and says the wound in JFK's throat was an entry wound.

W*gs thinks he knows better than the doctor.

This is the sort of arrogant idiocy that has made our nation the laughing stock of the world -- and despised. MHG

Remember your own words the next time you're arrogant enough to dismiss every engineering expert when discussing 911.

W*GS
11-26-2013, 06:22 PM
Dr Crenshaw was in the emergency room at Parkland Hospital -- and says the wound in JFK's throat was an entry wound.

W*gs thinks he knows better than the doctor.

Moving goalposts, again.

The fatal shot was from the rear and blew the right side of JFK's head apart. It did *not* come from the front and destroy the back of his head.

Quit being such a ****ing liar. But then you'd have to completely silence yourself.

W*GS
11-26-2013, 06:23 PM
Remember your own words the next time you're arrogant enough to dismiss every engineering expert when discussing 911.

gaffe doesn't know his ass from a hole in the ground.

He's one of the most clueless and ignorant dickheads I've ever met in 25+ years of being online.

nyuk nyuk
11-26-2013, 08:37 PM
I looked at the thread title and wondered why we're still rattling about this 50 years later.

Then I saw "Gaffney."

nyuk nyuk
11-26-2013, 08:38 PM
Bull****.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/1/16/JFK_skull_trajectory.jpg

This is clearly visible on the slow loop video that's available just about everywhere.

Bronco Yoda
11-26-2013, 09:16 PM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eqzJQE8LYrQ&feature=youtube_gdata_player

Im no forensic analyst but I can see on the Zapruder film the right front of JFK's skull blown open. That is an exit wound. Full metal jacket bullets tend not to cause that type of violent expansion. Seems like a completely different type of round than the bullet that traversed the president's superior thorax, traveling through the governor, and found intact with minimal damage. It seems like common sense to me that the headshot was a hollow point or similar round. It also seems like common sense to me that a hollow point round would have expanded and caused a devastating exit wound on the anterior chest or neck of the president. I dont understand how anyone with a basic concet of terminal ballistic effects can think otherwise. Call me a conspiracy theorist, but those were two markedly different bullets.

Exactly. you should watch the show and book I cited above. It goes over all this. There were bullet fragments all throughout the brain that was clear as day in the X-Ray by witnesses. The X-Ray that the Secret Service took and was never seen again.

mhgaffney
11-27-2013, 08:04 AM
Remember your own words the next time you're arrogant enough to dismiss every engineering expert when discussing 911.

Astonishing.

mhgaffney
11-27-2013, 08:08 AM
Emergency room doctors frequently see gunshot wounds. They know an entry wound when they see one.

The entry wound in JFK's throat means he was shot from the front. End of story.

You clowns ought to be asking: Why did the Warren Commission ignore the doctors at Parkland? Why did the autopsy doctors not consult with the doctors at Parkland? Why were the doctors at Parkland told to keep quiet?

Of course, we know the answer.

Garcia Bronco
11-27-2013, 11:13 AM
Emergency room doctors frequently see gunshot wounds. They know an entry wound when they see one.

The entry wound in JFK's throat means he was shot from the front. End of story.

You clowns ought to be asking: Why did the Warren Commission ignore the doctors at Parkland? Why did the autopsy doctors not consult with the doctors at Parkland? Why were the doctors at Parkland told to keep quiet?

Of course, we know the answer.

There was no entry wound anywhere on JFK's front because all the bullets came from behind him. I can literally see them in the enhanced film.

The Warren Commission and it's finding are no longer valid because they didn't have the tools to analyse the evidence that we have today.

Where is your proof someone told them to be "quiet". Is there a signed letter from the government? A statement from the Government?

Nope...because no one told them to be quiet.

DenverBrit
11-27-2013, 12:28 PM
Astonishing.

I knew 'hypocritical irony' would fly over your head, apparently even spelling it out for you has the same effect. ::)

The Lone Bolt
11-27-2013, 01:01 PM
I knew 'hypocritical irony' would fly over your head, apparently even spelling it out for you has the same effect. ::)

Well you should know by now that the only experts with credibility are the ones that agree with Gaffney (even if they're in a tiny minority).

mhgaffney
11-27-2013, 02:36 PM
Well you should know by now that the only experts with credibility are the ones that agree with Gaffney (even if they're in a tiny minority).

Dr Charles Crenshaw was the emergency room doctor who cut the tracheotomy in JFK's throat at Parkland Hospital on Nov 22, 1963.

Though the Parkland doctors who examined and tended to JFK that day were told to keep quiet -- he had the courage to write a book about that day.

I read Dr Crenshaw's book when it was first published in 1992. In it he says that ALL of the doctors who were present recognized the throat wound as an entry wound. All of them.

This explodes the lone gunman cover story for what it is -- a big lie -- because it means JFK was shot from the front. Ergo, there had to be at least two gunmen.

What about this don't you understand?

MHG

DenverBrit
11-27-2013, 02:37 PM
Well you should know by now that the only experts with credibility are the ones that agree with Gaffney (even if they're in a tiny minority).

Gaffney's agreeable expert.

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_rLV-ZuNPwJ4/SG-exAPo-1I/AAAAAAAABz0/edWgNWJOiTs/s1600/GageWithBoxes.jpg

mhgaffney
11-27-2013, 02:39 PM
This sort of reaction raises the question -- is there an honest man left in America?

Is there even one honest man left??

W*GS
11-27-2013, 02:49 PM
This sort of reaction raises the question -- is there an honest man left in America?

Is there even one honest man left??

It sure as FYUCK ain't you.

DENVERDUI55
11-30-2013, 04:25 PM
Bent? Surely you jest.

Here's a photo from the Warren Commission Report -- of the magic bullet that supposedly passed through JFK and Connally. It's nearly pristine.

Bullets that hit bony tissue are ALWAYS badly deformed. As the man sad, "This dog don' hunt.."

MHG

Full metal jackets do not really deform. Here is a picture of several bullets that were recovered from various elephants and buffalo. You don't have much experience with firearms do you? The head shot to me on JFK looked an awful lot like a .224 cal bullet traveling at high speed to me.

W*GS
11-30-2013, 04:39 PM
Full metal jackets do not really deform. Here is a picture of several bullets that were recovered from various elephants and buffalo. You don't have much experience with firearms do you? The head shot to me on JFK looked an awful lot like a .224 cal bullet traveling at high speed to me.

gaffe has never his let mega-colossal ignorance stop him from preaching at us and calling us clueless dupes and a-holes.

Arkie
11-30-2013, 09:07 PM
That last shot on the Zapruder film looks to me like Kennedy got shot in the face blowing his brains out the back of his skull. However, I'm no expert.

I've always thought there was more than one gunman involved, but I didn't believe it was some huge conspiracy, moreso that someone wanted Kennedy dead, and that Ruby's actions weren't the act of a patriot who was pissed off that someone shot the president. Ruby was sent to shut Oswald up.

Is that the official story? It's just a coincidence that Ruby was also a strip club owner with ties to the mob.

Dr. Broncenstein
12-01-2013, 04:07 AM
First bullet strikes the president in the upper back, leaves the lower anterior neck, strikes the governor in the chest/arm/thigh. You can clearly see both men painfully wince at the exact same time. You can clearly see the president grabbing the anterior neck and slump forward immediately afterward and does not change position or wince again until the fatal head shot.

The wounds caused by the first bullet were all described as neat and clean. This is despite striking bone in the president's spine and the governor's chest/wrist. All of these wounds were survivable with the exception of creating a chest wall defect called a sucking chest wound in the governor, which is easily treated with a ball-valve effect dressing / mechanical ventilation / chest tube. This is what a full metal jacket round does -- it penetrates and does not expand. It often pencils through tissue causing little tissue damage to surrounding structures unless it tumbles. Fatal wounds are certainly possible but it requires direct penetration of a critical structure like the brain, spinal cord, heart, or major blood vessel.

A full metal jacket exit wound could easily be mistaken for an entry wound. Entry wounds are assumed to be small / neat with the exception of burn marks / gunpowder stippling for close proximity muzzle blast effects. The president had a small / neat wound on his upper back and a small / neat wound on his anterior neck that was obscured with a surgical incision.

The headshot caused a massive, explosive, expanding wound. The outward explosive effect is clearly seen towards the front right of the skull. This is compatible with a hollow point or similar bullet striking from the rear. The bullet causing this wound causes a plainly visible effect that is in direct opposition to the first shot. How anyone can look at the Zapruper film with any basic knowledge of terminal ballistics and believe otherwise just amazes me.

I'm not saying there were multiple shooters from behind. I'm just saying there were two different types of bullets causing the exact types of wounds they were designed to cause.

Dr. Broncenstein
12-01-2013, 04:39 AM
Emergency room doctors frequently see gunshot wounds. They know an entry wound when they see one.

The entry wound in JFK's throat means he was shot from the front. End of story.

You clowns ought to be asking: Why did the Warren Commission ignore the doctors at Parkland? Why did the autopsy doctors not consult with the doctors at Parkland? Why were the doctors at Parkland told to keep quiet?

Of course, we know the answer.

Explain to me how an entry wound is determined. I'm just a surgeon who has taken care of more gun shot victims than I can remember. Truly curious as to how someone can definatively tell an entrance from an exit caused by a non-expanding missile fired from a distance beyond point blank range.

Dr. Broncenstein
12-01-2013, 05:03 AM
It is not uncommon for clinicians such as emergency department physicians or trauma surgeons to misinterpret the directionality of perforating wounds[34] ; therefore, it is generally preferable for such specialists to defer such interpretation to the forensic pathologist, at least in fatal cases.

http://emedicine.medscape.com/article/1975428-overview#aw2aab6c20

DENVERDUI55
12-01-2013, 10:11 AM
First bullet strikes the president in the upper back, leaves the lower anterior neck, strikes the governor in the chest/arm/thigh. You can clearly see both men painfully wince at the exact same time. You can clearly see the president grabbing the anterior neck and slump forward immediately afterward and does not change position or wince again until the fatal head shot.

The wounds caused by the first bullet were all described as neat and clean. This is despite striking bone in the president's spine and the governor's chest/wrist. All of these wounds were survivable with the exception of creating a chest wall defect called a sucking chest wound in the governor, which is easily treated with a ball-valve effect dressing / mechanical ventilation / chest tube. This is what a full metal jacket round does -- it penetrates and does not expand. It often pencils through tissue causing little tissue damage to surrounding structures unless it tumbles. Fatal wounds are certainly possible but it requires direct penetration of a critical structure like the brain, spinal cord, heart, or major blood vessel.

A full metal jacket exit wound could easily be mistaken for an entry wound. Entry wounds are assumed to be small / neat with the exception of burn marks / gunpowder stippling for close proximity muzzle blast effects. The president had a small / neat wound on his upper back and a small / neat wound on his anterior neck that was obscured with a surgical incision.

The headshot caused a massive, explosive, expanding wound. The outward explosive effect is clearly seen towards the front right of the skull. This is compatible with a hollow point or similar bullet striking from the rear. The bullet causing this wound causes a plainly visible effect that is in direct opposition to the first shot. How anyone can look at the Zapruper film with any basic knowledge of terminal ballistics and believe otherwise just amazes me.

I'm not saying there were multiple shooters from behind. I'm just saying there were two different types of bullets causing the exact types of wounds they were designed to cause.

Come on now that just doesn't fit the conspiracy theories. I agree with your post completely. Reading through this thread that I missed before I don't know how people can claim they see the head shot on the back of the head when it is clear where the kill shot came from.

Fedaykin
12-01-2013, 11:17 AM
The headshot caused a massive, explosive, expanding wound. The outward explosive effect is clearly seen towards the front right of the skull. This is compatible with a hollow point or similar bullet striking from the rear. The bullet causing this wound causes a plainly visible effect that is in direct opposition to the first shot. How anyone can look at the Zapruper film with any basic knowledge of terminal ballistics and believe otherwise just amazes me.

I'm not saying there were multiple shooters from behind. I'm just saying there were two different types of bullets causing the exact types of wounds they were designed to cause.

High energy impacts (like from the rifle used by LHO) create significant hydrostatic pressure in soft tissue, even if they pass cleanly through. Combine that with a fractured skull from the initial impact and you have an exploding wound like Kennedy's. No hollow point required.

There are basically two ways to generate a lot of hydrostatic pressure. A relatively high energy round (like used on Kennedy) or a relative low energy round (like a .45 auto) with an expanding bullet.

Anyone that's had to finish off a large game animal with a head shot has seen that exact wound pattern.

Dr. Broncenstein
12-01-2013, 11:25 AM
High energy impacts (like from the rifle used by LHO) create significant hydrostatic pressure in soft tissue. Combine that with a fractured skull and you have an exploding wound like Kennedy's. No hollow point required.

Anyone that's had to finish off a large game animal with a head shot has seen that exact wound pattern.

With a soft point, hollow point, or similarly expanding missile. Not with a full metal jacket. And why didn't the first bullet (which struck spinal column, ribs, wrist while traveling through two people) expand and fragment in a similar fashion?

Fedaykin
12-01-2013, 11:40 AM
With a soft point, hollow point, or similarly expanding missile. Not with a full metal jacket. And why didn't the first bullet (which struck spinal column, ribs, wrist while traveling through two people) expand and fragment in a similar fashion?

LHO was using a relatively high powered round at close range. It didn't need a hollow point to generate significant amounts of hydrostatic pressure. You only need an expanding bullet if you're using a relatively low power round, like from a pistol.

Dr. Broncenstein
12-01-2013, 11:49 AM
LHO was using a relatively high powered round at close range. It didn't need a hollow point to generate significant amounts of hydrostatic pressure. You only need an expanding bullet if you're using a relatively low power round, like from a pistol.

Close range? High velocity? As defined by whom? The 6.5 carcano is not typically considered a high velocity round. Close range is typically defined as less than 6 inches, which can be indicated by muzzle blast effects to the victim.

DENVERDUI55
12-01-2013, 11:49 AM
High energy impacts (like from the rifle used by LHO) create significant hydrostatic pressure in soft tissue, even if they pass cleanly through. Combine that with a fractured skull from the initial impact and you have an exploding wound like Kennedy's. No hollow point required.

There are basically two ways to generate a lot of hydrostatic pressure. A relatively high energy round (like used on Kennedy) or a relative low energy round (like a .45 auto) with an expanding bullet.

Anyone that's had to finish off a large game animal with a head shot has seen that exact wound pattern.

The 6.5 carcano is a relatively underpowered round and using full metal jackets would pretty much just pencil hole through whatever soft tissue it hit. I have finished off several big game animals at close range with my 300 win mag using various soft points and the bullets are built stout enough that they only make big holes if contacting bone. Now it is possible that the carcano stiking the skull at a certain angle caused basically the side of his head to pop off but it would not cause the bullet he was using to fragment.

Fedaykin
12-01-2013, 11:50 AM
From what I've read, the ballistics reports on Kennedy suggests that the bullet in the head shot tumbled (rather than passing straight through), which is a very common "feature" of rounds designed for military purposes (e.g. the round LHO was using).

For example, a 5.6 NATO is designed to tumble and fracture INSTEAD of expanding like a hollow or soft point, as expanding rounds are banned for military use.

Dr. Broncenstein
12-01-2013, 11:54 AM
Dr. Michael Kurtz has done considerable research on the wound ballistics aspects of the case. Dr. Kurtz argues that the skull fracturing and bullet fragmentation visible on the autopsy x-rays indicate high-velocity ammunition struck the president's skull, not low-velocity or medium-velocity ammunition as supposed by the single-assassin theory:

The x-rays of the skull reveal massive multiple fractures of the skull on both the right and left sides. There is extensive fragmentation of the bone, and several pieces of the skull are missing. This type of damage is not produced by ammunition like that allegedly used by Oswald. Copper-jacketed bullet commonly penetrate straight through objects, leaving only small tracks and causing little in the way of bone fractures. Wounds ballistics tests performed for the commission confirmed this. Bullets from Oswald's rifle, from a .257 Roberts soft-point hunting rifle, and from a United States Army M-14 rifle were fired into blocks of gelatin covered with masonite. The Mannlicher-Carcano bullet went straight through the gelatin, leaving a tiny track and causing little damage to the substance. The soft-point hunting bullet expanded rapidly upon entering and considerably more damage. The M-14 bullet caused more destruction than the others. . . .

The skull x-rays also depicted extensive bullet fragmentation within the skull. This type of fragmentation is not typical of full-jacketed military ammunition. That ammunition was specifically designed to remain intact when passing through a body. Lead, or hollow-point, ammunition is the type that causes fragmentation. . . .

World War II films of men being shot in the head by Mannlicher-Carcano rifles reveal absolutely no massive explosion of brain tissue and also show quite graphically that the men invariably fell in the same direction as the trajectory of the bullets that struck them. Autopsy photographs and x-rays of some of the victims of Mannlicher-Carcano-inflicted head wounds also showed no bullet fragmentation, no serious disruption of brain tissue, and very small exit wounds.

http://www.mtgriffith.com/web_documents/forensic.htm

Fedaykin
12-01-2013, 11:58 AM
The 6.5 carcano is a relatively underpowered round and using full metal jackets would pretty much just pencil hole through whatever soft tissue it hit. I have finished off several big game animals at close range with my 300 win mag using various soft points and the bullets are built stout enough that they only make big holes if contacting bone. Now it is possible that the carcano stiking the skull at a certain angle caused basically the side of his head to pop off but it would not cause the bullet he was using to fragment.

The 6.5 Carcano is significantly more powerful (i.e more energy) than a modern 5.56NATO round. Look at the ballistics data. It also uses a much heavier projectile meaning it retains more energy for a longer distance.

Is it comparable to a 300 win mag? Of course not.

Dr. Broncenstein
12-01-2013, 11:58 AM
From what I've read, the ballistics reports on Kennedy suggests that the bullet in the head shot tumbled (rather than passing straight through), which is a very common "feature" of rounds designed for military purposes (e.g. the round LHO was using).

For example, a 5.6 NATO is designed to tumble and fracture INSTEAD of expanding like a hollow or soft point, as expanding rounds are banned for military use.

5.56 NATO fmj is a high velocity round. It's behavior is markedly different than the medium velocity 6.5 carcano in simulated and actual terminal ballistics findings.

DENVERDUI55
12-01-2013, 12:02 PM
From what I've read, the ballistics reports on Kennedy suggests that the bullet in the head shot tumbled (rather than passing straight through), which is a very common "feature" of rounds designed for military purposes (e.g. the round LHO was using).

For example, a 5.6 NATO is designed to tumble and fracture INSTEAD of expanding like a hollow or soft point, as expanding rounds are banned for military use.

Sorry a 160 gr .264 caliber bullet isn't tumbling. That bullet is a great bullet with super high sectional density .328 and a high BC of .509. That bullet is super stable and would keep on penetrating just like it did on the first shot.

I have shot plenty of coyotes, fox, marmots, rabbits with my 22-250 using various bullets. If i use FMJ like the military uses in the .223 there is no damage because that is what they were designed for(no damage to furs). If I use a soft point, Vmax, BT(really just HP), or hollow point it will turn rabbits into a bloody mist or blow them in half. Coyote/fox pelts are ruined if shot with them. If a bullet fractures like you say that is the same as expanding.

Dr. Broncenstein
12-01-2013, 12:04 PM
The 6.5 Carcano is significantly more powerful (i.e more energy) than a modern 5.56NATO round. Look at the ballistics data. It also uses a much heavier projectile meaning it retains more energy for a longer distance.

Is it comparable to a 300 win mag? Of course not.

How do you possibly come up with this? (1/2 Mass) x velocity(squared) = kinetic energy.

Fedaykin
12-01-2013, 12:07 PM
5.6 NATO fmj is a high velocity round. It's behavior is markedly different than the medium velocity 6.5 carcano in simulated and actual terminal ballistics findings.

What I have read didn't mention fragmentation, but rather a small entry wound and a large exit wound with an "exploded" skull. If the report of fragmentation is correct, it's certainly not consistent with FMJ.

All I'm saying is it doesn't require a hollow point round to cause the kind of damage to Kennedy's skull.

Fedaykin
12-01-2013, 12:15 PM
How do you possibly come up with this? (1/2 Mass) x velocity(squared) = kinetic energy.

Because I actually looked at the ballistic data?

6.5 Carcano: 2,572 J
5.56 NATO: 1,796 J

The carcano is a 162gr (10.5g) projectile @ 700m/s, a 63gr (4.1g) projectile @ 936m/s. Data from wiki.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/6.5x52mm_Mannlicher-Carcano
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/5.56%C3%9745mm_NATO

The math works out.

Fedaykin
12-01-2013, 12:22 PM
Sorry a 160 gr .264 caliber bullet isn't tumbling. That bullet is a great bullet with super high sectional density .328 and a high BC of .509. That bullet is super stable and would keep on penetrating just like it did on the first shot.

I have shot plenty of coyotes, fox, marmots, rabbits with my 22-250 using various bullets. If i use FMJ like the military uses in the .223 there is no damage because that is what they were designed for(no damage to furs). If I use a soft point, Vmax, BT(really just HP), or hollow point it will turn rabbits into a bloody mist or blow them in half. Coyote/fox pelts are ruined if shot with them. If a bullet fractures like you say that is the same as expanding.

Like I said, I'm going on what I've read, which suggested that it may have tumbled. At this point, I have no idea what is actual fact as I've read so many different accounts. Everything from a clean entry/exit of the bullet to massive fragmentation in the skull. What were the actual terminal ballistics of this shot?

DENVERDUI55
12-01-2013, 12:58 PM
Like I said, I'm going on what I've read, which suggested that it may have tumbled. At this point, I have no idea what is actual fact as I've read so many different accounts. Everything from a clean entry/exit of the bullet to massive fragmentation in the skull. What were the actual terminal ballistics of this shot?

Are you saying tumbling in the air? The whole .224 bullet tumbling is a myth. Do some research on it. Sure after 7-10 inches of penetration the bullet will slow down enough for the heavier ass end to pass the tip(key hole) This happened because the original M16A1 had 1-12 twist instead of the 1-7 twist those 62 grain bullets required.

Dr. Broncenstein
12-01-2013, 01:02 PM
Because I actually looked at the ballistic data?

6.5 Carcano: 2,572 J
5.56 NATO: 1,796 J

The carcano is a 162gr (10.5g) projectile @ 700m/s, a 63gr (4.1g) projectile @ 936m/s. Data from wiki.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/6.5x52mm_Mannlicher-Carcano
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/5.56%C3%9745mm_NATO

The math works out.

I agree that the 6.5 carcano has more kinetic energy, but the difference in power is not what I would call significant. And the point I was contesting was that the 6.5 is "significantly more powerful" based upon the weight the projectile. Velocity squared vs 1/2 mass. Velocity is by far the most important determinant in kinetic energy. Aside from that, the 5.56 fmj becomes unstable in tissue specifically because of its high velocity to the point that it does not behave like a typical fmj round at 6.5 carcano velocities.

Fedaykin
12-01-2013, 01:19 PM
I agree that the 6.5 carcano has more kinetic energy, but the difference in power is not what I would call significant.


If you don't want to call 40% more energy "significant" that's your prerogative I suppose. It's after all a subjective term.


And the point I was contesting was that the 6.5 is "significantly more powerful" based upon the weight the projectile. Velocity squared vs 1/2 mass. Velocity is by far the most important determinant in kinetic energy.


If you read more carefully, you'll find I was saying it would retain more energy over distance because of its higher mass.


Aside from that, the 5.56 fmj becomes unstable in tissue specifically because of its high velocity to the point that it does not behave like a typical fmj round at 6.5 carcano velocities.

Again, I'm just going on what I read that suggested it tumbled. I don't know what the hell the terminal ballistics actually were. I don't think anyone else here does either. We've also seen postings of massive fragmentation, and I've even read claims of "shavings" from the bullet and several other narratives.

Dr. Broncenstein
12-01-2013, 01:20 PM
Not to argue minutia -- it just seems readily apparent to me that the initial wounds were caused by a completely different type of bullet than the fatal headshot. I'm certainly not the first person to point this out. I don't have an agenda in this other than I would like a plausible explanation. I do not entirely believe the official explanation.

Fedaykin
12-01-2013, 01:30 PM
Not to argue minutia -- it just seems readily apparent to me that the initial wounds were caused by a completely different type of bullet than the fatal headshot. I'm certainly not the first person to point this out. I don't have an agenda in this other than I would like a plausible explanation. I do not entirely believe the official explanation.

All I'm saying it's it's not impossible for the 6.5 to cause the damage seen in the wound. I agree its unlikely, but we don't even have reliable information about what the terminal ballistics were, so...

houghtam
12-01-2013, 01:32 PM
Are you saying tumbling in the air? The whole .224 bullet tumbling is a myth. Do some research on it. Sure after 7-10 inches of penetration the bullet will slow down enough for the heavier ass end to pass the tip(key hole) This happened because the original M16A1 had 1-12 twist instead of the 1-7 twist those 62 grain bullets required.

The documentary I saw didn't use the word tumbled, rather yaw. The angle of the bullet being changed even just a little while traveling through soft tissue is going to create a much larger wound than a straight shot. Like a derailed train going through a small town. Oh, the huge manatee.

Fedaykin
12-01-2013, 01:38 PM
The documentary I saw didn't use the word tumbled, rather yaw. The angle of the bullet being changed even just a little while traveling through soft tissue is going to create a much larger wound than a straight shot. Like a derailed train going through a small town. Oh, the huge manatee.

Aye, yaw is the correct term. Not all yaw will make the bullet flip end over end "tumble" but can. "Fishtailing" is a more common term.

DENVERDUI55
12-01-2013, 02:14 PM
The documentary I saw didn't use the word tumbled, rather yaw. The angle of the bullet being changed even just a little while traveling through soft tissue is going to create a much larger wound than a straight shot. Like a derailed train going through a small town. Oh, the huge manatee.

Yaw and tumbling when you talk about about ballistics are related but different. A bullets with incorrect twist will cause the bullet to yaw before it should and once it gets slow enough it will tumble. The poster that used the word tumble was clear if he meant tumble before hitting the targer or tumbling inside the target.

Fedaykin
12-01-2013, 02:30 PM
Yaw and tumbling when you talk about about ballistics are related but different. A bullets with incorrect twist will cause the bullet to yaw before it should and once it gets slow enough it will tumble. The poster that used the word tumble was clear if he meant tumble before hitting the targer or tumbling inside the target.


I mean tumbling inside the target, which as this video shows is quite possible even with that particular round:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PZRUNYZY71g

mhgaffney
12-01-2013, 05:27 PM
Explain to me how an entry wound is determined. I'm just a surgeon who has taken care of more gun shot victims than I can remember. Truly curious as to how someone can definatively tell an entrance from an exit caused by a non-expanding missile fired from a distance beyond point blank range.

The entry wound tends to be small. Exit wounds are much larger.

You need to ask why the doctors who performed the JFK autopsy failed to consult with the doctors in Dallas who who attended the dying JFK.

Then ask why the Warren Commission likewise failed to interview the emergency room doctors.

The reason is clear -- their testimony conflicted with the story the Warren Commission wanted to tell -- that a lone gunman did the job.

MHG

W*GS
12-01-2013, 07:25 PM
gaffe, you're so ****ing out of your element it's pathetic.

We've all noted that you have absolutely nothing to say about the ballistics commentary.

Because you can't - you're too goddamned clueless.

You've got your twisted beliefs, and no facts can ever alter them.

Sick.

Dr. Broncenstein
12-01-2013, 07:40 PM
The entry wound tends to be small. Exit wounds are much larger.

You need to ask why the doctors who performed the JFK autopsy failed to consult with the doctors in Dallas who who attended the dying JFK.

Then ask why the Warren Commission likewise failed to interview the emergency room doctors.

The reason is clear -- their testimony conflicted with the story the Warren Commission wanted to tell -- that a lone gunman did the job.

MHG

ER physicians and trauma surgeons alike can be confused as to what is a definitive entry vs exit. Declaring something to be a definitive entry wound carries major legal ramifications that become extremely difficult to justify when in conflict to autopsy results. There is much more to the wound analysis than gross examination of size and configuration. I describe gunshot wounds as possible entry vs possible exit for this reason, as does any physician that trained me. I am not a forensic pathologist, and I do not have the luxury of inspecting every tissue plane grossly /microscopically / chemically without the risk of lethal injury to surrounding structures.

Imagine for a second how incredibly nuts the situation was for the Parkland ER when the POTUS showed up unannounced with his head blown to smithereens. A small exit wound in the anterior neck caused by a cleanly neck traversing fmj bullet fired from long distance could easily have been confused for an entrance. They were scrambling in a futile attempt to salvage his life despite a visible mortal head wound combined with no signs of life. They probably noted a small bullet hole in the anterior neck while desperately trying to create a surgical airway. I seriously doubt they had time to note any other wound characteristics.

In case you didn't notice, I'm disputing the lone gunman theory. Well, at least the uniform missile theory.

Garcia Bronco
12-02-2013, 01:19 PM
Not to argue minutia -- it just seems readily apparent to me that the initial wounds were caused by a completely different type of bullet than the fatal headshot. I'm certainly not the first person to point this out. I don't have an agenda in this other than I would like a plausible explanation. I do not entirely believe the official explanation.

It could be as simple as LHO having a mix of JHP and FMJs

mhgaffney
12-02-2013, 03:52 PM
ER physicians and trauma surgeons alike can be confused as to what is a definitive entry vs exit. Declaring something to be a definitive entry wound carries major legal ramifications that become extremely difficult to justify when in conflict to autopsy results. There is much more to the wound analysis than gross examination of size and configuration. I describe gunshot wounds as possible entry vs possible exit for this reason, as does any physician that trained me. I am not a forensic pathologist, and I do not have the luxury of inspecting every tissue plane grossly /microscopically / chemically without the risk of lethal injury to surrounding structures.

Imagine for a second how incredibly nuts the situation was for the Parkland ER when the POTUS showed up unannounced with his head blown to smithereens. A small exit wound in the anterior neck caused by a cleanly neck traversing fmj bullet fired from long distance could easily have been confused for an entrance. They were scrambling in a futile attempt to salvage his life despite a visible mortal head wound combined with no signs of life. They probably noted a small bullet hole in the anterior neck while desperately trying to create a surgical airway. I seriously doubt they had time to note any other wound characteristics.

In case you didn't notice, I'm disputing the lone gunman theory. Well, at least the uniform missile theory.

I suggest you check out Dr Crenshaw's book. It would be best for you to get it from the horse's mouth, so to speak. Crenshaw is no longer with us - but his book has been reissued.

BTW, you did not answer my questions -- about why the Parkland Hospital doctors were excluded from the official investigation.

http://www.amazon.com/JFK-Been-Shot-Charles-Crenshaw/dp/0786034270/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1386024700&sr=1-1&keywords=charles+crenshaw

Dr. Broncenstein
12-02-2013, 05:12 PM
I suggest you check out Dr Crenshaw's book. It would be best for you to get it from the horse's mouth, so to speak. Crenshaw is no longer with us - but his book has been reissued.

BTW, you did not answer my questions -- about why the Parkland Hospital doctors were excluded from the official investigation.

http://www.amazon.com/JFK-Been-Shot-Charles-Crenshaw/dp/0786034270/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1386024700&sr=1-1&keywords=charles+crenshaw

Why was the law requiring a homicide victim to undergo an autopsy by the local medical examiner bypassed? If you are implying a coverup, I'm not arguing. This happened long before I was born, and honestly I have no personal interest aside from pointing out the grossly visible terminal ballistic discrepancy. I'm pointing out what I can plainly see on the Zapruper film, and it looks blatantly obvious that there were two markedly different bullets striking from the rear.

Dr. Broncenstein
12-02-2013, 05:13 PM
It could be as simple as LHO having a mix of JHP and FMJs

Could be but that was never part of the official explanation.

Garcia Bronco
12-02-2013, 10:58 PM
Could be but that was never part of the official explanation.

Unless the cartridge was stamped, how would they know? He might have done his own loads...or it's more likely he just had a bag bullets. That's much more likely than some of the conspiracy theories.

mhgaffney
12-03-2013, 10:15 AM
Why was the law requiring a homicide victim to undergo an autopsy by the local medical examiner bypassed? If you are implying a coverup, I'm not arguing. This happened long before I was born, and honestly I have no personal interest aside from pointing out the grossly visible terminal ballistic discrepancy. I'm pointing out what I can plainly see on the Zapruper film, and it looks blatantly obvious that there were two markedly different bullets striking from the rear.

Good point. We know there was a confrontation at the hospital between the local authorities and the Secret Service. The SS prevailed -- and removed JFK's body under threat of force.

Garcia Bronco
12-03-2013, 11:00 AM
Good point. We know there was a confrontation at the hospital between the local authorities and the Secret Service. The SS prevailed -- and removed JFK's body under threat of force.

And the same would happen today and no one is going to stand there an argue local law with the First Lady and the SS.

Dr. Broncenstein
12-03-2013, 12:28 PM
And the same would happen today and no one is going to stand there an argue local law with the First Lady and the SS.

Because they aren't subject to the laws that govern the rest of us? There is a good reason that autopsy law existed, and it probably had something to do with the proper chain of custody and whatnot... you know, so that things like homicides arent covered up by hastily removing and destroying evidence.

mhgaffney
12-03-2013, 12:34 PM
Because they aren't subject to the laws that govern the rest of us? There is a good reason that autopsy law existed, and it probably had something to do with the proper chain of custody and whatnot... you know, so that things like homicides arent covered up by hastily removing and destroying evidence.

Like JFK's clothing never made it back with the body. The hole in JFK's coat/shirt proves that the entry hole in the back was lower -- not at the level of the neck.

The clothing is thus crucial evidence disputing the single bullet theory.

mhgaffney
12-03-2013, 01:53 PM
We also know that Warren Commission member Gerald Ford - -who later became President -- altered the autopsy report!

Ford's alteration of evidence in support of the lone gunman theory -- was a criminal act, to say the least.

Kennedy's clothing proves the gunshot wound in JFK's back was lower -- not at the level of the throat wound.

It's mind boggling -- but check out the 1997 story in the NY Times. Here is the verbatim article...MHG

Ford Made Key Change In Kennedy Death Report
Published: July 03, 1997

Thirty-three years ago, Gerald R. Ford changed ever so slightly -- the Warren Commission's main sentence on the place where a bullet entered President John F. Kennedy's body when he was killed in Dallas.

Mr. Ford's change strengthened the commission's conclusion that a single bullet passed through Kennedy and wounded Gov. John B. Connally, -- a crucial element in the commission's finding that Lee Harvey Oswald was the sole gunman.

Mr. Ford, who was a member of the commission, wanted a change to show that the bullet entered Kennedy ''at the back of his neck'' rather than in his uppermost back, as the commission originally wrote.

Mr. Ford said today that the change was intended to clarify meaning, not alter history.

''My changes had nothing to do with a conspiracy theory,'' he said in a telephone interview.

But his editing was seized upon by conspiracy theorists who reject the commission's conclusion that Mr. Oswald had acted alone.

''This is the most significant lie in the whole Warren Commission report,'' said Robert D. Morningstar, a computer systems specialist in New York City who said he has studied the assassination and written an Internet book about it.

http://www.nytimes.com/1997/07/03/us/ford-made-key-change-in-kennedy-death-report.html

mhgaffney
12-03-2013, 02:15 PM
This site has a photocopy of the Warren Commission draft report about the JFK autopsy. You can actually see how Ford altered the text...
http://www.jfklancer.com/Ford-Rankin.html

Garcia Bronco
12-04-2013, 10:54 AM
Because they aren't subject to the laws that govern the rest of us? There is a good reason that autopsy law existed, and it probably had something to do with the proper chain of custody and whatnot... you know, so that things like homicides arent covered up by hastily removing and destroying evidence.

I am not saying that...I am just saying put yourself in there on that day in Dallas and realize you might have to argue with Jackie O while she's stained in blood from her husband. It's a hard conversation to have and one you most likely will not win no matter how good of a communicator you might be.

Its the Kobayashi Maru.

Garcia Bronco
12-04-2013, 10:57 AM
We also know that Warren Commission member Gerald Ford - -who later became President -- altered the autopsy report!

Ford's alteration of evidence in support of the lone gunman theory -- was a criminal act, to say the least.

Kennedy's clothing proves the gunshot wound in JFK's back was lower -- not at the level of the throat wound.

It's mind boggling -- but check out the 1997 story in the NY Times. Here is the verbatim article...MHG

Ford Made Key Change In Kennedy Death Report
Published: July 03, 1997

Thirty-three years ago, Gerald R. Ford changed ever so slightly -- the Warren Commission's main sentence on the place where a bullet entered President John F. Kennedy's body when he was killed in Dallas.

Mr. Ford's change strengthened the commission's conclusion that a single bullet passed through Kennedy and wounded Gov. John B. Connally, -- a crucial element in the commission's finding that Lee Harvey Oswald was the sole gunman.

Mr. Ford, who was a member of the commission, wanted a change to show that the bullet entered Kennedy ''at the back of his neck'' rather than in his uppermost back, as the commission originally wrote.

Mr. Ford said today that the change was intended to clarify meaning, not alter history.

''My changes had nothing to do with a conspiracy theory,'' he said in a telephone interview.

But his editing was seized upon by conspiracy theorists who reject the commission's conclusion that Mr. Oswald had acted alone.

''This is the most significant lie in the whole Warren Commission report,'' said Robert D. Morningstar, a computer systems specialist in New York City who said he has studied the assassination and written an Internet book about it.

http://www.nytimes.com/1997/07/03/us/ford-made-key-change-in-kennedy-death-report.html

This is the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard. You are sore about a distinction in wording? Futher just because the bullet hole is there on the shirt, that doesn't indicate EXACTLY what "body part" was behind it as the bullet struck him from Oswalds rifle.

Btw there is no lone gunman "theory" it's a fact. Everything else is theory or a conspiracy, but Oswald was the only gunman. It's a fact. Not a theory

houghtam
12-04-2013, 11:11 AM
This is the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard. You are sore about a distinction in wording? Futher just because the bullet hole is there, that doesn't indicate EXACTLY what "body part" was behind it as the bullet struck him from Oswalds rifle.

Jesus. Really. Uhh

If he wants to get that technical, the C8 vertebra is right between your shoulder blades, but is still technically considered the neck.

Jesus.

Garcia Bronco
12-04-2013, 01:09 PM
Jesus. Really. Uhh

If he wants to get that technical, the C8 vertebra is right between your shoulder blades, but is still technically considered the neck.

Jesus.

Apparently Ford was not able to make that distinction? Further, without looking, I would imagine this is some kind of summation and not the actual hard medical details. Either way...it doesn't indicate a conspiracy at all.

mhgaffney
12-04-2013, 04:55 PM
The last official US government investigation into the murder -- in 1979 -- disagreed with you. It concluded on the basis of an acoustics study that a JFK had been killed by a conspiracy.

Garcia Bronco
12-04-2013, 05:00 PM
The last official US government investigation into the murder -- in 1979 -- disagreed with you. It concluded on the basis of an acoustics study that a JFK had been killed by a conspiracy.

That is unpossible and any conclusions based on a "study" of "acoustics" after the fact is laughable at best. Especially in 1979. Lmao

mhgaffney
12-04-2013, 06:18 PM
That is unpossible and any conclusions based on a "study" of "acoustics" after the fact is laughable at best. Especially in 1979. Lmao

hey Garcia, Eres estúpido!

Here is the 1979 report by the House Select Committee on Assassinations. It was a bull**** study -- but the group included a few honest men and got part of it right -- including the conclusion that a conspiracy had occurred.

http://www.history-matters.com/archive/contents/hsca/contents_hsca_report.htm

Garcia Bronco
12-05-2013, 11:37 AM
hey Garcia, Eres estúpido!

Here is the 1979 report by the House Select Committee on Assassinations. It was a bull**** study -- but the group included a few honest men and got part of it right -- including the conclusion that a conspiracy had occurred.

http://www.history-matters.com/archive/contents/hsca/contents_hsca_report.htm

Right...they got the part right that fits your own conclusions. Good grief. You are utterly incapable of being objective.

Arkie
12-05-2013, 01:50 PM
U R not paying attention, the NFL is prohibited by LAW from broadcasting or even playing on fri and sat nights !
high school on friday, college on saturday, texas, hello?
JFK was gonna repeal the law in '63 and thats why dallas had him killed !
hello?

LOL We have a new theory. The law was only 2 years old at the time JFK rolled through Texas.

houghtam
12-05-2013, 02:20 PM
LOL We have a new theory. The law was only 2 years old at the time JFK rolled through Texas.

:spit:

Let me guess, Gaff...

This is a completely ridiculous theory?

alkemical
12-05-2013, 09:46 PM
Kennedy was assassinated by a conspiracy to do so, which led to the coup of a nation.