Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

L. Livermore scientists dispute key evidence behind lone gunman theory

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Latest Breaking News Donate to DU
 
Algorem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 12:35 AM
Original message
L. Livermore scientists dispute key evidence behind lone gunman theory
Lawrence Livermore lab scientists dispute key evidence behind lone gunman theory in JFK assassination BULLET PROOF

http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/breakin...

By Betsy Mason
CONTRA COSTA TIMES

LIVERMORE - More than four decades after his death, John F. Kennedy's assassination remains the hottest cold case in U.S. history, and the clues continue to trickle in. Now Lawrence Livermore Laboratory scientists say a key piece of evidence supporting the lone gunman theory should be thrown out.

A new look at clues gleaned from studies of crime-scene bullet fragments shows they may have been misinterpreted.

"It basically shatters what some people call the best physical evidence around," said chemist Pat Grant, director of the lab's Forensic Science Center.

Grant and Livermore Lab metallurgist Erik Randich found that the chemical "fingerprints" used to identify which bullets the fragments came from are actually more like run-of-the-mill tire tracks than one-of-a-kind fingerprints...

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
IChing Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 12:44 AM
Response to Original message
1. Holly Crap these are top scientist. nominated
"I've spoken with people on both sides of the conspiracy divide and there's no question but that (Randich and Grant's) work is going to be very difficult, if not outright impossible, to refute," said Gary Aguilar, a San Francisco ophthalmologist and single-bullet skeptic who has studied the Kennedy assassination for more than a decade. "It looks impregnable.

Although Randich and Grant's research doesn't solve the Kennedy assassination, it certainly does weaken the case for a lone gunman.

"In recent years, the (bullet) fragment evidence has become one of the key struts supporting the single-bullet theory," Aguilar said. "Randich and Grant have knocked this slat out from under the theory."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jobycom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 12:53 AM
Response to Original message
2. (Spicoli voice): People on ludes shouldn't write articles!
That's a whole lot of words and hyperbole to basically say very little. I believe Oswald was the lone gunman, and I've never once used Guin's analysis to prove it, and frankly wasn't even aware of it. The Livermore study ONLY shows that Guin's research was flawed. It doesn't prove there was more than one bullet, it doesn't suggest or hint or imply or in any way point to there being more than one bullet. It doesn't disprove the "single bullet theory." It doesn't even weaken it. It just says that Guin's proof is wrong. The so-called "single bullet theory" predates any of Guin's work, anyway. I know that's obvious, but from the tone of the article you'd think they'd proven something significant.

There's a good argument against paying people by the word.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
John Q. Citizen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 01:08 AM
Response to Reply #2
4. And not only that, but they mistate the theory itself. It was
always called the "magic bullet theory" because anyone looking would realise that it would take magic to make a bullet act the way they claimed it did.

The House Committee on Assasinations got it right where the Warren Commision failed. They said in their final report that it was more than likely there were others involved. The recent article in the Washington Post dealing with the acoustic evidence supports the House on there findings.

I'm constantly amazed that the House Report and the accoustic evidence can't seem to penatrate the herd mentality of the public at large. Once the story goes out one way, people can't seem to adapt to the new information and revise their belief.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jobycom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 01:18 AM
Response to Reply #4
5. Yeah, all the people like me who have studied the evidence in detail
are just dumb sheep. The majority of the general public who learns most of what it knows about the assassination from fictional Oliver Stone films are the true visionaries in this case.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
merwin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 01:25 AM
Response to Reply #5
6. Damn conspiracy theorists... how dare they not believe the govt's version
of events!!! They should be shot.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KansDem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 08:53 AM
Response to Reply #6
22. "They should be shot"
Maybe they could get one of those "magic bullets" so that more than one person can be executed with only one shot?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jobycom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 10:43 AM
Response to Reply #6
39. You can't play the martyr, you are the majority and I was the one attacked
I was told I was following the "herd." "Herds" can't be the minority.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
merwin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 04:03 PM
Response to Reply #39
89. Who said I was playing the martyr?
Edited on Mon Aug-21-06 04:03 PM by merwin
Besides, truthiness declares that herds CAN be the minority :D
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mom cat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 08:29 PM
Response to Reply #6
108. I am buying stock in tin foil!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kolesar Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 06:05 AM
Response to Reply #5
12. Would you say the History Channel account from last year was correct?
I missed parts of it. It explained the odd trajectory of the bullet by showing that Connally was sitting in a folding seat that was "inboard" and closer to the centerline of the convertible limo.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jobycom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 11:05 AM
Response to Reply #12
40. You tell me
Here's the limo just before the shooting.


Here's the view of Oswald's window from the spot where the final shot struck JFK (The spot isn't in question, it's clearly visible on Zapruder--only the direction of the shot is in question). Could you have made that shot? Does it look to you like the angle is wrong for a single bullet? Just for laughs, pretend that a shot did come from that window (the one with the arrow) and that it struck JFK in the back of the neck (jus below his shoulder blade).


Here's a better angle to see JFK's slump. Look at his tie, draw a line straight back and slightly upwards from the knot (roughly where the bullet exited). You'll see it aligns with his back, not his neck.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kolesar Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 02:22 PM
Response to Reply #40
73. some answers without sarcasm would be helpful
...or "dry humor" or whatever. I don't have the patience to comb out the meaning hidden in a negative comment hidden in a question. Just say what you mean.

I am skeptical that there ever was truth in this investigation.

And per your question, that pic of the book depository looks possible, and it also does not. Fish eye or other distortion effects in photos can make for odd seeing. They twist the lines of perspective. Telephotos are notorious for odd effects. An airplane a big as the moon!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jobycom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 04:02 PM
Response to Reply #73
88. There was no sarcasm intended in any of my comments.
I meant it to be straightforward. What do you think? To me, the shot is easily possible. All of the effects of the bullet are possible. And if you flip it around, and think about what multiple shooters would imply, it gets much less possible. Kennedy had a hole in his throat and one in his back behind the throat. If one of those shots came from the front, then from where? Connally is in front of him, the windshield is clearly higher than JFK's throat, and the center bar between the passenger and rear doors would have made a shot to the throat impossible from the front. Given where he was struck (further up the street than the view from the street in the photo above--and btw, I've stood on that X in the road, and there's no significant distortion in that photo. The distortion you describe comes about when a telephoto lens takes pictures of far distant objects, like planes or the moon.), there aren't any places on the knoll where someone could hit him in the throat without standing in front of the pergola or shooting through the windshield. If the throat wound is an exit wound, meaning he was shot from behind, where would the bullet have gone? You can see from the pictures that Connally is right in front of him, slightly lower, and slightly inboard. Notice the angle of the road, and the straight line effect is enhanced.

Frankly, I think you need magic bullets and impossible shots to claim the Grassy Knoll as the origin of either shot that hit JFK or Connally.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kolesar Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 07:59 PM
Response to Reply #88
107. Pardon the brusque tone in my comments
thanks for explaining
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FogerRox Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 10:14 PM
Response to Reply #88
115. joby, assuming U R right..
why were microscopes slides of JFK brain stolen? Those slides would show that U R right.

Case closed, slam dunk.

At least 6 shots were fired, as many as 11. From 3 sources.

If it looks like a hit, smells like a hit, ITS A HIT



Which is why 80%+ of Americans dont believe the lone gun man theory.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jobycom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-22-06 11:20 AM
Response to Reply #115
123. They weren't
Case closed, slam dunk.

Six shots? Not one single witness claimed that, and the audio tape at most shows four, and one of those, as you know, is in question.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FogerRox Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-22-06 08:53 PM
Response to Reply #123
137. I am not familiar with the audio tape, open mic on the motercycle, yes.
studied in the '60s (analog)and about '79-80 (digital), IRRC.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FogerRox Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-23-06 11:02 PM
Response to Reply #123
152. kickin for the "Audio tape" LOL.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
benEzra Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 04:55 PM
Response to Reply #40
92. All three shots were at point-blank range for a rifle...
Edited on Mon Aug-21-06 04:58 PM by benEzra
Here's the view of Oswald's window from the spot where the final shot struck JFK (The spot isn't in question, it's clearly visible on Zapruder--only the direction of the shot is in question). Could you have made that shot?

The last shot wasn't the one that hit Governor C.

All 3 shots were at point-blank range for a scoped rifle - IIRC, the 1st shot was only 35-40 yards and the last shot was 90 yards or less. Using a rifle with a 2-4x scope, as Oswald did - or even open sights - was not a particularly difficult shot, especially since Oswald was essentially shooting from a benchrest. Here's a different angle of the crime scene:



C, D, and E are the locations of the limousine at the time of the 3 shots; A is the window Oswald was shooting from. From a marksmanship standpoint, a shot from the grassy knoll (B, I think) would be harder. IIRC, Mr. Zapruder was filming from point G, but I may be wrong.


Ballistically, I think the evidence is not inconsistent with Oswald being the sole shooter. The distance was nearly point-blank, the rate of fire was reasonable for the rifle and the distance, and the ballistics of the 6.5mm Carcano shooting heavy FMJ rounds are consistent IMHO with the bullet paths as given by proponents of the lone-shooter theory.

I do believe that Oswald may not have been the only conspirator in the scenario, but I think he was probably the only shooter.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BootinUp Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 02:43 PM
Response to Reply #12
75. Do you mean Discovery Channel?
I just ordered the dvd since it has had good reviews. Didn't get a chance to see it before. This is the one that reproduces the conditions and shows that a bullet trajectory had nothing to do with magic and more to do with poor graphics drawn to make the bullet look magic.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kolesar Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 03:24 PM
Response to Reply #75
82. Maybe. It was on TV earlier this year
I am just recalling this from memory. :hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Thor_MN Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 06:43 PM
Response to Reply #12
101. Not only inboard, but lower in height as well.
Not sure if it was the same show, but I saw one where they set up the shot accurately with ballistics gel dummies with skeltons insides and almost exactly duplicated the shot. The only difference was that the slug did not penetrate the thigh of the dummy in the Connally position. I think that their shot hit one more bone, or more squarely hit a bone, so had less energy at the end.

They also shot longitudinally into a solid log. The slug penetrated somewhere around three feet or more, IIRC, and was comparable in deformation to the "magic bullet." Plenty enough evidence to prove to me that the "Magic bullet" shot was possible with one bullet.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BootinUp Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 06:59 PM
Response to Reply #101
104. You shall burn sir,
j/k
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
exlrrp Donating Member (598 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 09:00 AM
Response to Reply #5
23. Kennedy was shot from the front
Edited on Mon Aug-21-06 09:02 AM by exlrrp
Anybody looking at the Zapruder film--and Ive seen it frame by frame-- can tell without doubt that kennedy's headshot came from the front. NO doubt about it at all. You can see his head snap backward, the brains flying out the back of his head. The brains and gore were all over the trunk of the car. I'm a Vietnam combat veteran, I saw more than one person hit in the head so I'm REAL sure about this.
There's no way in hell Oswald made that shot unless you believe the bullet turned 180 degrees. Someone else was firing from the grassy knoll, just like witnesses claim.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Zynx Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 09:31 AM
Response to Reply #23
28. Very much the opposite.
The massive plume of brains comes very clearly out the front of his skull.

http://www.assassinationresearch.com/v2n2/zfilm/zframe3...
http://www.assassinationresearch.com/v2n2/zfilm/zframe3...

It is very clearly more towards the front and the brains spray out TOWARDS the front and a little on the top, none at all spray towards the back other than the small amount carried by the wind as the car continued to drive by. The direction of the exit wound makes this matter very clear.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
William Seger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 09:50 AM
Response to Reply #23
30. Frame by frame? Sorry, you missed a frame
Actually, no matter how many times Kevin Costner says "Back and to the left," the Zapruder film clearly shows the head snapping forward in the instant after the hit -- his chin hits his chest. Watch it again, frame by frame. Things don't wait three movie frames to react to a bullet impact. It proves, beyond doubt (no matter how many time you say "NO doubt about it at all") that the shot wsa from behind. The "interesting" thing to me about "conspiracy theories" is how "evidence" never goes away, no matter how many times it's debunked (just like the "magic buller").
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jobycom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 11:28 AM
Response to Reply #23
44. So how do you explain the many, many medical experts that dispute you?
If there was no doubt about it, there would be no doubt about it. I'm sure you've heard doctors and forensic pathologists and ballistics experts explain how nerve impulses and cranial pressure could have caused exactly that reaction from a rear shot.

As for the witnesses, the majority of witnesses, including everyone in the motorcade (and I knew one of them) counted three shots, and all agree they came from behind. That includes Connally and LBJ, who one would have expected to agree with Warren, as well as Ralph Yarborough, a vocal critic of the Warren Commission and an opponent of Connally and LBJ. Yarborough (he's the one I knew) believed Warren was badly flawed, but he also believed Oswald was the lone gunman.

So I appreciate your first-hand knowledge, but for you to say that all the professionals and all the eye witnesses who have seen Zapruder and have explained scientificly and experientially why they believe the shot came from behind is a bit stubborn.

More on the witnesses: Over half of the witnesses at the time of the shooting believed the shots came from the area of the SBD window--above them. Of those who disagreed, some heard shots coming from the overpass, some from the Grassy Knoll, and some admitted they couldn't tell where the shots came from, so there was no unity amongst the minority who believed the shots came from somewhere other than the SBD. In addition, several of the witnesses who said that shots came from the GK were on the overpass or the other side of the street, so that the Grassy Knoll was between them and the SBD window, so they still claimed the shots came from the general direction of the SBD. I know this goes against Oliver Stone, but it's well documented, nonetheless. Here's a link (a biased one, admittedly) with a breakdown of various tabulations of witnesses. Notice the most extreme has only a slight edge for the Grassy Knoll, and he clearly misrepresents people's views (For instance, Nellie COnnally, whom he claims was undecided on the direction of the shots, but who testified often that the shots came from over her right shoulder--there's even a link to a video of her saying it).

Both sides slant their numbers, no question. But there is not a majority concensus that the shots came from the Grassy Knoll, and if you've ever been to the GK (I'm assuming you have), you know that if the shots had come from the GK, EVERYONE would have agreed where they came from, since most people were standing on it, and it's just not that big.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EVDebs Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 05:50 PM
Response to Reply #44
96. The Zapruder film was doctored or the autopsy photos altered or both
"grave doubt cast on autopsy photographs"

http://www.assassinationresearch.com/v2n2/pittsburgh.pd...

Agent Mike can't seem to get it right.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jobycom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-22-06 11:28 AM
Response to Reply #96
124. Then why didn't they just doctor a film showing Oswald in the window?
The "doubt" cast on the autopsy photos is the same type of "doubt" cast on global warming research and the Holocaust. It is "doubt" manufactured by people who believe there must be doubt because all the evidence disproves their point of view.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Shadder Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-22-06 02:14 PM
Response to Reply #124
132. Interesting
Edited on Tue Aug-22-06 02:14 PM by Shadder
So, how do you account for all the doctors, nurses and other staff at Parkland that worked on JFK that have stated, written and testifyed on numerous occasions that the autopsy photos did match that that they observed are making it all up? And following that same line of thinking, How would you account for most of the people that were involved in the autopsy have either came out and said that they were fake or cast doubt upon them?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jobycom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-23-06 10:49 AM
Response to Reply #132
144. Yeah, and none of them died mysterious deaths, either
The doctors and nurses at Parkland have a variety of different interpretations, because they were only involved in trying to fix the wounds, not do forensic analysis of what caused the wounds. At least two doctors assumed that the head wound was caused by the same shot that made a hole in the front of the neck. They testified that they were guessing the bullet had gone in through the neck, deflected off a veterbrae, and blew off part of Kennedy's skull. Can you imagine if THAT had been the official story, how angrily the conspiracists would denounce their testimony as ludicrous? Yet they are the ones that the conspiracists listen to, because they are saying what CTers want to hear. But they were in no position nor were they trained to do forensics.

Those who were in a position to know, the forensics experts, claim they are legite, as have most experts who have examined the photos to determine forgery.

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/hbf.txt
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/clark.txt
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/autopsy1.txt
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/autopsy2.txt

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
reprobate Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 11:36 AM
Response to Reply #23
45. "the bullet turned 180 degrees." Definition of a magic bullet.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jobycom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 11:56 AM
Response to Reply #45
51. Actually, he wasn't talking about the "magic bullet," he was talking about
the head shot bullet. There were three shots fired (three fourths of the witnesses agree to that): the first missed everything (it may have struck a tree limb or a light fixture and deflected). According to Warren, the second shot struck Kennedy in the back of the neck and traveled through him to hit Connally in a straight trajectory. This is often called "the Magic Bullet," even though computer analysis of the Zapruder film and the trajectory of a bullet fired from the SBD show that a bullet could have traveled in a straight line and done the damage reported.

What the post you responded to was talking about was the shot that killed JFK. Warren claimed it came from behind and struck JFK in the back of the head. The controversy is over what JFK's head does--it snaps violently back, and some people argue that means the bullet had to hit him from the front. However, many medical experts argue that the head snap was too violent to be caused by the bullet passing through JFK's head at a high rate of speed, and that the head snap was a neurological response. Some argue that Zapruder shows a slight jerk forward, then a massive jerk backwards, further supporting the idea of a rear shot and a neurological reaction.

The previous poster obviously disagrees, but either way, that wasn't the "magic bullet."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EVDebs Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 05:43 PM
Response to Reply #5
95. All the evidence that's fit to print...
Edited on Mon Aug-21-06 05:44 PM by EVDebs
http://www.assassinationscience.com/johncostella/jfk/in...

"Dumb sheep"...you said it, I didn't. Maybe this site's 'inconvenient truths will penetrate into that evidence pile.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Zynx Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 02:00 AM
Response to Reply #4
7. Nothing magic about it. A 6.5MM FMJ round penetrated a lot of material.
Edited on Mon Aug-21-06 02:00 AM by Zynx
More or less in a straight line when you consider how the individuals were actually sitting. It's a very good penetrator, althought I doubt that was a concern when it was selected.

I agree with the other poster. "JFK" created an enormous amount of pollution on the subject.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
John Q. Citizen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 04:24 AM
Response to Reply #7
9. If you read the article linked in the OP
they have a diagram of the "Magic Bullet Theory" You may notice the bullet changes direction in mid air after exiting downwards from the front of Kennedys neck for no apparent reason defying Newtonian physics (an object in motion tends to stay in motion unless influenced by an outside force.) in this case the mysterious force also defies gravity. Check out the article
http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/breakin...

The Congressional Investigation was undertaken long before the Stone movie
was even an idea and they arrived at the conclusion that there was most probably a second shooter and others involved. Have you read the Congressional Committee's report so as to refute it, or would you rather ignore that and just talk about a movie? That seems a little too easy. i never saw the movie by the way. I'll have to rent it sometime.

The acoustical evidence reported in the WA PO here

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A56560-2001Mar...

also conclusively demonstrates that there was a second gun person from the area of the grassy knoll, as was noted in the report. And there was substantial eyewitness reports of a shot fired from that area. But of course that didn't square with the erroneous ballistics conclusion at the time of either the Warren Report or the Congressional investigation.

Who needs ballistic, acoustic, and eyewitness evidence when we already know just how it all went down? Sure, it was just a lone unhappy assassin and Jack Ruby was just a misguided patriot with ties to the mob. And who needs evidence that in the weeks before the assasination someone impersonated Oswald and showed up at the Soviet Embassy in Mexico and made calls and sent a letter? That would only muddy the "lone assasin" waters, now wouldn't it? http://www.jfklancer.com/LNE/LHO-Mexi.html


Nothing to see here folks, move along...


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BootinUp Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 07:33 AM
Response to Reply #9
19. I guess you missed the part
in the picture caption where it mentions tests that have shown there was no magic involved in the bullet path.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DerBeppo Donating Member (452 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 02:32 PM
Response to Reply #9
74. Once again...
"proof" comes with a picture where the two are sitting at the same height and right in front of each other. move the good senator down and to the left--where he was actually sitting--and it works out. the only thing "magic" is how that crooked line straightens out when people recreate the scene accurately.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cosmicdot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 06:24 PM
Response to Reply #74
100. who is the good senator? n/m
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
zeemike Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 07:17 AM
Response to Reply #7
17. Yes penetrated a lot of material
And never deformed. That is truly magic.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Zynx Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 09:23 AM
Response to Reply #17
26. It was actually slightly deformed.
Besides, it was a full metal jacket bullet and thus it is likely, depending on random factors of manufacturing quality and impact points, that it could remain largely intact.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Schema Thing Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 10:02 AM
Response to Reply #17
34. Slightly deformed, and it's been recreated with VERY similar results
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 10:38 AM
Response to Reply #34
37. Heavily deformed also has been recreated
Seriously, try shattering multiple bones with a bullet, and it will be heavily deformed.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BootinUp Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 11:10 AM
Response to Reply #37
41. Who said you can't deform a bullet?
The question was does it have to be deformed.



So are we having any effect on your opinion? Probably not eh? I will have to break off this discussion for a while.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 11:42 AM
Response to Reply #41
47. Nor do i think we have an effect on your opinion
Enough time wasted already.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jobycom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 11:42 AM
Response to Reply #17
46. It was highly deformed. Here's a pic.


Here's an article on why that is exactly what you would expect to find from a steel jacket bullet traveling that far and first passing through layers of clothing and flesh before striking a wrist bone:
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/Lattimer.txt

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 12:51 PM
Response to Reply #46
65. That's hardly deformed - this is highly deformed:
(3rd picture, right-most bullet)


Governor Connally's Wrist Wound and CE-399
http://www.jfk-info.com/fragment.htm

<snip>

Here are seven views of Commission Exhibit CE-399, the "magic" bullet.
...
(two views shows here)



<snip>

(left-most bullet is the magic bullet, test bullet on the right has shattered several bones, in between are test bullets not having penetrated several bones - in order to recreate the magic bullet)

HSCA/JFK Exhibit F-294

Dr. WECHT: This exhibit, F-294, is a composite photo that I believe clearly, dramatically and most succinctly demonstrates the absurdity, the scientific untenability of the single bullet theory. This is Commission exhibit 399. I will not engage in semantical quibbling with my friend and collegue, Dr. Baden, whether you can be near pristine or fully pristine. It is a near pristine bullet, again, with the only deformity being demonstrated at the base...

Mr. PURDY: Dr. Wecht, is it your opinion that no bullet could have caused all of the wounds to President Kennedy and Governor Connally or the Commission exhibit 399 could not have caused all of the wounds to both men?

Dr. WECHT: Based upon the findings in this case, it is my opinion that no bullet could have caused all these wounds, not only 399 but no other bullet that we know about or any fragment of any bullet that we know about in this case.

<snip>

Dr. SHAW: All right. As far as the wounds of the chest are concerned, I feel that this bullet could have inflicted those wounds. But the examination of the wrist both by X-ray and at the time of surgery showed some fragments of metal that make it difficult to believe that the same missle could have caused these two wounds. There seems to be more that three grains of metal missing as far as the - I mean in the wrist.


The Warren Commission ignored their own expert witnesses when they concluded that "All the evidence indicated that the bullet found on the Governor's stretcher could have caused all his wounds."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jobycom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 01:41 PM
Response to Reply #65
70. My link was a refutation of what you just posted.
Lassiter's experiment proved Wecht wrong. It proved that a bullet COULD do what the 399 was supposed to have done and come out looking like the so-called "pristine bullet." (That name is a joke. For a steel clad bullet of that density to be smashed and bent to the degree 399 was would take tremendous force).

Here's an excerpt from the link I posted, in case you didn't read it:

"Wecht deplores the fact that the Assassinations
Committee did not try to reproduce the "magic bullet" by performing
similar tests and has challenged his colleagues to produce even
*one* bullet that had emerged similarly undamaged.

Wecht's challenge has now been met by Dr. Lattimer."

snip

REENACTMENT OF THE WOUNDING OF GOVERNOR CONNALLY (FRAME 224). As
with any study of small photographs (movie frames), it is desirable
to try to verify the findings by duplicating the situation as
closely as possible, using the exact same type of rifle,
cartridges, clothing, necks, ribs and radiuses, as at Dallas. In an
attempt to verify and study this phenomenon further, a duplication
of President Kennedy's size 16 neck and of Governor Connally's
chest and jacket were tested to see exactly what would happen. A
size 16 neck simulation was created, using fresh pork muscle, with
the bone removed and the skin still in place. A rack was prepared
to hold a rib cage at a distance of 24 inches from the Kennedy
neck. A white dress shirt and tropical worsted jacket were placed
over the rib cage on a special rack. A necktie was tied in place to
simulate the clothing Governor Connally wore at the time of the
shooting in Dallas. An array of radiuses (arm bones), encased in
simulated forearms, was arranged in front of the right lapel of
Governor Connally and a bullet trap was mounted beyond this array.
Bullets of the Western Cartridge Company 6.5 millimeter ammunition
of the same lots used by Lee Harvey Oswald were fired from a
Carcano carbine exactly like the one used by Oswald. We knew from
our previous experiments and Lincoln"] that our test bullets would almost certainly "tumble"
and would strike our "Governor Connally back" at about the point
where he was actually struck. Our test bullet also struck a rib
(just as in Governor Connally), removing 4.5 centimeters of the rib
and exited in the area that would have been under his right nipple.
The flying fragments of rib, marrow and soft tissue, accompanying
the exiting, tumbling bullet, caused a large ragged hole in the
shirt and the jacket lining and plastered them with fragments of
rib and soft tissue, just as in the Governor's instance. The bullet
exited under the right lapel, still tumbling, making a 3 centimeter
transverse bullet wound in the cloth. It then struck one of the
forearms arrayed in front of the jacket. The bullet was captured in
a bullet trap beyond this point. A videotape of the motion of the
jacket was obtained, along with frames from a rapid-firing 35
millimeter camera. These revealed that the jacket bulged out about
6 inches and then snapped back. The lapel flipped over against the
neck area. The forward motion of the bulging jacket was completed
in 3/30th of a second, whereupon the backward snap began on our
static model. This was completed by 16/30th of a second from the
shot. After this, the jacket and lapel were again back in normal
position. While the rib and soft tissue fragments caused a large
ragged wound in the shirt, just as described in Governor Connally's
shirt, the exit hole of the bullet in the front of the jacket was
elongated to a length of 3 centimeters (almost exactly the length
of the tumbling bullet). The large shirt wound and the bulge of the
jacket were more related to the hail of fragments of rib and soft
tissue. The bullet then struck one of the radiuses mounted in front
of the jacket. The bullet from this experiment was flattened on one
side and bent from hitting the rib and radius while traveling
sideways, just as bullet 399 was flattened and bent for the same
reasons (399 is definitely not "pristine"). Lead extruded from the
rear of our bullet as with bullet 399. The radius was fractured and
tiny fragments of lead were left adherent to the periosteum,
exactly as in Governor Connally. One of the most dependable
features of this Kennedy and Connally mockup was the characteristic
manner in which these Carcano bullets turned sideways (tumbled)
after exiting the neck of Kennedy.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EVDebs Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 05:54 PM
Response to Reply #46
97. CE399 doesn't look like that, it's "pristine" and that's the anomaly
Edited on Mon Aug-21-06 05:56 PM by EVDebs
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BootinUp Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 06:47 PM
Response to Reply #97
102. You must have missed it
the Discovery Channel special where they finally showed the bullet from angles that made more sense.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jobycom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-22-06 11:33 AM
Response to Reply #97
125. That picture IS CE 399. Read your own link, they have the same picture.
Scroll down past the picture you want me to see and you'll see the same angle I just showed--the end view of CE399.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EVDebs Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-22-06 12:20 PM
Response to Reply #125
126. Is this the same bullet found on the gurney in Parkland ? Wink, wink, nod
nod ? I'm curious about how the moniker "pristine" ended up being connected with this. A little obvious -- but as the Bible says, let those with ears hear and those with eyes see.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sce56 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 08:54 PM
Response to Reply #2
111. Evidence in the commison report that shows the evidence was IGNORED
Edited on Mon Aug-21-06 09:29 PM by sce56


these two will not show here you have to go to http://www.jfkmurdersolved.com to see them

http://www.jfkmurdersolved.com/images/fbi1.BMP
http://www.jfkmurdersolved.com/images/fbi2.BMP

Who was in charge of the hit?

George Bush of the CIA

and Nixon Prescot Bush's man

This FBI-document of 1947 recommends that "one Jack Rubenstein of Chicago" should not be called to testify for the Committee on Unamerican Activities, for he is working for Congressman Richard M. Nixon. According to the Warren Commission, Ruby had no connections with Oswald, Organized Crime or the Government. No wonder the header reads "This is sensitive".

Prescott with his protg Dick Nixon
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jobycom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-22-06 01:54 PM
Response to Reply #111
129. None of that was ignored, the shell casing discrepency was in Warren
Here's a link, but to summarize: The Warren Commission in 1964 asked why the envelope contained two, not three, spent shell casings. The reason was simple: the Homicide detective in Dallas had one in his possession. The envelope was marked "Two of three spent shell casings." The live round was ejected live from Oswald's rifle. In fact, YOU PROVE IT. Read your second image. Just above "6.5 spent rounds (3)" is the entry "Live Round 6.5" The news coverage of the assassination within a couple of hours of the shooting was reporting that there were THREE spent shell casings.

You will argue that that the WC was fixing the evidence, or that the witnesses were lying to cover up. I can't really prove otherwise, of course. But it proves that Warren did not ignore the evidence of the first two photos you showed, and none of it disputes witness testimony or ballistics evidence, anyway.

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/round.htm

Photo three: You can tell from about a fifth of a man's profile in a grainy photo who he is? I've never seen a 1964 photo of Bush, so I can't say. Even it it was Bush, it doesn't prove anything about whether Oswald was the lone gunman. I guess it could mean that Bush hired him.

Fourth image: There are a lot of documents indicating someone named "George Bush" was in the CIA. There is none indicating that HW Bush was involved in the CIA during that period. There is bogus testimony about ship names during the Bay of Pigs from a former CIA operative named Prouty. He gets the ship names wrong, so I'm not sure why I should believe him on Bush.

Fifth: May have been Jack Ruby, I can't find any info one way or the other. Sixteen years before the assassination.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EVDebs Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-22-06 04:04 PM
Response to Reply #129
133. Bay of Pigs = Zapata Swamps in Cuba. Ever hear of ZapataOffshore?
""Fourth image: There are a lot of documents indicating someone named "George Bush" was in the CIA. There is none indicating that HW Bush was involved in the CIA during that period. There is bogus testimony about ship names during the Bay of Pigs from a former CIA operative named Prouty. He gets the ship names wrong, so I'm not sure why I should believe him on Bush.""

Zapata Offshore, CIA 'proprietaries' aren't exactly out in the open, as with the current Valerie Plame company BushCo has inadvertently outed, you know the name...

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BootinUp Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-22-06 04:13 PM
Response to Reply #133
134. Whats this got to do with JFK assassination?
I had to ask.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EVDebs Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-23-06 12:46 AM
Response to Reply #134
138. You must be a friend of joby's or have a wicked sense of humor nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BootinUp Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-23-06 05:36 AM
Response to Reply #138
141. you are just trying to avoid answering the question.
And I don't have any friends. ;)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EVDebs Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-23-06 11:22 AM
Response to Reply #141
145. You avoid investigating GHWB and Zapata Offshore and CIA ops nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BootinUp Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-23-06 12:19 PM
Response to Reply #145
146. ok, we'll leave it there then n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EVDebs Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-23-06 05:47 PM
Response to Reply #146
147. "Cut and run" a typical coward's response...Oh, but you're not
Edited on Wed Aug-23-06 05:49 PM by EVDebs
really a Democrat (capital d) now are you ! Please, stay and fight. Earn some respect.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jobycom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-23-06 10:16 AM
Response to Reply #133
143. I can't actually tell what you're saying. Are you agreeing or disagreeing?
If you're saying Zapata Offshore (My father used to work for them) is a CIA front, fine. I don't know, and don't care, it has nothing to do with Kennedy.

If you're trying to say that Prouty's testimony proves Bush was part of the CIA, then horseshit. Prouty said that he worked for the CIA, he delivered three ships to a man named George Bush in Guatemala for the Bay of Pigs invasion, and that Bush named the three ships after his oil company, his home town, and his wife. That's horseshit as far as it can be proven. There was no ship called "Zapata," the entire operation was called "Zapata" after the penisnula in Cuba where they were invading, as you say, so it hardly proves a connection to Bush, who named his company Zapata in 1953. One of the ships was named the "Barbara J." There is no "J" in Barbara Pierce Bush's name (she has no middle name). As for the "Houston," there is a lot in Texas named after Sam Houston (and no shortage of things named after Zapata).

The real kicker is that, contrary to Prouty's story, these ships were named many years before the Bay of Pigs, as has been proven through dated ship records.

So if Bush was CIA, the Bay of Pigs and Prouty's testimony hardly prove it, or even hint at it.

Not that has one thing to do with whether Oswald fired the shots. He could have been working for Bush, LBJ, the CIA, and Castro together, for all I know. My only point is that there were no shooters on the Grassy Knoll or anywhere else, other than the SBD window were witnesses saw a man firing shots, where a rifle with three spent shell casings and one live round matching the rifle and matching the one recovered bullet were found, and where computer mockups of trajectories show the shots as likely coming from. People believe OJ Simpson is guilty on far less conclusive evidence with far greater holes than that.

WHy Oswald did it, and whether someone put him up to it, that's another discussion. One I'm not nearly as informed on.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sce56 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-23-06 01:02 AM
Response to Reply #129
140. How about looking at the whole Zapruder film not the cropped one
And see the driver a SS agent, William Greer, looking back and looking back as the shooting is going on waiting for the head shot to finally take his foot off the brake and step on it like he was in on the hit! Who ordered the SS agents to go to a club and disregard standing orders the night before in Houston so they were all hungover that morning!
Moments after the limousine passed the depository, shots rang out without any warning. In a matter of 6 to 24 seconds the bullets hit the President. As the shots were heard the speed of the limousine plunged from more than 13 mph to a mere 9 mph.

In the meantime Clint Hill who was in the car just behind the presidential limousine, leaped out on hearing the first shot and ran towards the limousine with the intention of hauling himself over the rear bumper and the trunk to reach the President and the First Lady. Hill had just grabbed a handrail along the trunk when another shot was heard and he watched in disbelief as a bullet hit the President on the head. At the point the driver accelerated suddenly almost throwing Hill off. However he managed to hold on and jumped into the back of the car.

At the time the presidential limousine came under fire, the two Secret Service agents in the front seat failed miserably to perform the protective functions expected of them. Under Secret Service regulations the agent on the passenger side of the front seat was supposed to protect President Kennedy by pushing the president down or by throwing his body over the president's. The agent did neither. The agent driving the limousine was, under Secret Service regulations, supposed to accelerate the limousine and speed away from dangers such as sniper fire. However, during the entire time that rifle bullets were whizzing into the open limousine the driver failed to accelerate, and may have even slowed down. Films taken during the assassination show that the limousine's brake lights were on and remained on until after President Kennedy had been fatally injured. Source: J. Marrs, Crossfire: The Plot That Killed Kennedy, pp. 12-15; 35; 244-45 (1989); R. Groden and H. Livingstone, High Treason, pp. 13-19; 127-28 (2nd ed. 1989).




And also account for the other shots as evidenced in the limo itself and the bullet that landed at the feet of James Tague by the underpass


Windshield crack

CE49Z dent in metal trim

Damaged Review mirror
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jobycom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-23-06 10:00 AM
Response to Reply #140
142. Has nothing to do with whether Oswald fired the shots or whether
the second bullet zigzagged or whether the ballistic evidence was ignored by Warren, which is all we're discussing here. Even if you correctly interpret the film, and I don't believe you do.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sce56 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-23-06 08:07 PM
Response to Reply #142
148. How many bullet holes in the windscreen of the car?
I see at least two in the above photos top frame above rearview mirror, cracked windshield possibly three counting the mirror. Add that to the one found off the strecher at Parkland and the one that missed the car hitting the curb below the underpass and the one that blew up in JFK's brain that makes five possibly six accounted for shots impossible for Oswald alone to have done that. Now I have a question for you where were you on that day? I rember it clearly when I love Lucy rerun was interuppted on tv as I was home from school it being a Parent Teacher Confrence day.


George on one of his Zapata oil platforms

Sure looks like George H W Bush.

See a good documentary on it at www.bushkilledjfk.com

Ahh the great moral first Family Dynasty


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Vidar Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 01:02 AM
Response to Original message
3. Glad to hear it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Wonk Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 02:25 AM
Response to Original message
8. Link to a very much related thread by octafish in GD
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 11:45 AM
Response to Reply #8
48. isn't it interesting how the nay-sayers tend to stay away from octafish's
posts.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BootinUp Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 11:48 AM
Response to Reply #48
49. You mean if he wasn't in Dallas that day
you all would have left him out of this? I sincerely doubt it. ;)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 12:03 PM
Response to Reply #49
52. Is that why the likes of you stay away from Octafish's posts?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BootinUp Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 12:11 PM
Response to Reply #52
55. I meant George H.W. Bush
whether he was in Dallas or not, would it make a difference in tiening the BFEE to a conspiracy to assasinate JFK.

I am not all that familiar with Octafish's posts, I only looked at that one.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 12:15 PM
Response to Reply #55
58. I meant it's interesting how the likes of you stay away from those posts
As should be clear by now.
Though it is apparent you are trying to avoid responding to that.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BootinUp Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 12:22 PM
Response to Reply #58
61. I honestly don't see where you or Octafish wish
Edited on Mon Aug-21-06 12:23 PM by Jim4Wes
to go with that information. So what, after the assassination Poppy felt like a young dude was worth investigating? Someone who had mentioned he would like to kill the President. Probably the guy was talking out of his ass and the FBI determined that. But Poppy reported it, they had their information, I'm sure the FBI had thousands of tips like that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 12:32 PM
Response to Reply #61
63. So you're still avoiding to respond to my initial remark
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BootinUp Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 12:34 PM
Response to Reply #63
64. now you lost me, bud. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stepnw1f Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 03:17 PM
Response to Reply #63
80. Nice Job (nt)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
goclark Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 12:03 PM
Response to Reply #48
53. Yep ~ Octafish is my source on this matter

Even though the MSM convinced me that Oswald was the one and only person that did it.

For me to believe otherwise would mean that Amerika and Poppy may have be a part of this scheme.

Which changed the way the RepubliCONS turned amerika over to them with ELECTION FRAUD etc.etc,etc,
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BootinUp Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 12:13 PM
Response to Reply #53
56. I can't tell
if you're being serious or not. :)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
goclark Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 01:49 PM
Response to Reply #56
71. I am an Octafish fan nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stepnw1f Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 03:15 PM
Response to Reply #48
79. Verrrrrrry Interesting Indeed
I don't buy the magic bullet theory either. Their "Theory" is very hard for me to believe.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rinsd Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-22-06 05:26 PM
Response to Reply #48
136. Maybe because he's been placed on ignore sometime ago?
Something I should learn to do with more of tin foilers.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rivertext Donating Member (174 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 04:41 AM
Response to Original message
10. take Jobycom's dare - download JFK facts tour, free

What did Senator Arlen Specter, the creator of the single bullet theory, say? Something like, 'The single bullet theory is like the Virgin Birth, you either believe it, or you don't.' The facts won't get you there.

For those of you who would like to begin an in depth investigation of the facts, or would just like a quick tour around the plaza, download, Sophie and JFK Witness -- my FREE e-book on the JFK assassination. It works on Windows and Macs.

JFK Witness offers the reader more than 2,000 pages of unedited testimony from 37 key Warren Commission witnesses to the assassination of President Kennedy plus over 100 photographs of exhibits presented in those hearings. Unlike the simple find function available in most other e-books, our search feature locates every occurrence of the word or words a reader searches for and then lists the chapter and the phrase in which that search string occurs.

The reader can create a notebook in Sophie and send to it any clues they find. What makes these Sophie notebooks unique is that the reader can whisk to it either the actual text they have highlighted or they can create a new linked entry in the notebook that saves just the location of that text. When the reader clicks on that entry in the notebook's table of contents (always present on the left hand side of the notebook) the Sophie e-book displays that page and the notebook displays any comments the reader may have made. JFK Witness comes with a notebook made by creating and commenting on these linked notebook entries. This notebook provides a quick guided tour to key passages within the testimony of assassination witnesses that contradict the Warren Report's conclusion that a "lone nut" killed JFK in less than 6 seconds with 3 shots from a bolt-action rifle.

JOBYCOM, readers can create their own notebooks try to prove whatever theory of the case they have -- and then share those notebooks with other readers. You can create a notebook that would then provide DU readers with a unique guided tour through your reading of the JFK witnesses.

The link to download the books is at the upper hand side left on the first side of my home page (where it talks about Sophie and my latest ebook, Kafkaesque.)

http://rivertext.com /

I guess I should warn you that the download also includes a dozen other free classics like Walden, The Selected Prose of Oscar Wilde, and the Imitation of Christ. Most of these have nothing to do with the JFK assassination or the Bush regime. However, Kafkaesque, comes with an introduction with a note about Kafka's relevance to the JFK assassination. The War of the Worlds, comes with an introduction pointing out how Spielberg misinterpreted the book. It isn't about terrorism, but imperialism and is relevant not to the attack on the U.S.A., but our response in Iraq.

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

One more thing, I'm working on a 3 minute film now about why understanding the JFK assassination continues to be essential to comprehending the workings of our government. That film, "Berlin 9-11", will be playing at an internet site near you, soon.

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

Brian Thomas

http://rivertext.com /
mixing art & ideas online since 1986

http://rivertext.smugmug.com /
photo essays about dissent against the Bush regime
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Nabia2004 Donating Member (566 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 03:51 PM
Response to Reply #10
85. Thank you, I'll check it out - nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
John Q. Citizen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 03:59 PM
Response to Reply #10
87. Very cool. I'm bookmarking for when I have some time. Thanks. n/t
Edited on Mon Aug-21-06 03:59 PM by John Q. Citizen
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Phrogman Donating Member (940 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 05:40 AM
Response to Original message
11. Any sensible person with eyes can watch the Zapruder film and see
That the shot that blew his head off came from the front and right.

Its so obvious. Anyone thats ever shot a muddy riverbank with a rifle could tell you that after watching the film.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BootinUp Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 06:12 AM
Response to Reply #11
13. One question
how is a muddy riverbank like a human head? Seems like a poor choice for a comparison to me. Here is one site of interest on the zapruder film.

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/organ2.htm
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Shadder Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 11:17 AM
Response to Reply #13
42. McAdams?
Your using John McAdams as a reference?

And you really want to be taken seriously? If JFK were to come back to life today and tell John McAdams exactly what hapened and it differed from his opinion it would not change his mind one little bit.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BootinUp Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 11:24 AM
Response to Reply #42
43. He appears to link to credible sites
He appears to link to credible sites. What is your problem with him, I guess his politics? I don't know the mans politics. Why don't you enlighten me.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Shadder Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 02:45 PM
Response to Reply #43
76. Politics have nothing to do with this.
I know nothing of his politics and really have no desire to find out. It's really no concern to me. My problem is that after 40 plus years of researching this issue and getting to know most of the other people researching, John McAdame while I will give him full credet for standing up for what he feels is correct, he has caused more setbacks in serious research over the years than anyone else. But lets just say that we have very different views as to what really happened as this is really not the place to get into all this, how it happened and why it happened and leave it at we agree to disagree. Many people agrehappened.e with me, many people do not. Some up thread said, quite correctly that this is an issue that your not going to change someones viewpoint on. You believe what you do and thats pretty much it. I long ago gave up on trying to change peoples opinions on this issue.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BootinUp Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 02:57 PM
Response to Reply #76
78. Thanks for the reply. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sofa king Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 11:52 AM
Response to Reply #42
50. What's wrong with McAdams?
As a historical researcher, I've always felt that McAdams has dealt with the evidence openly and fairly. He doesn't try to answer questions he can't answer and when those situations occur he often gives fair time to differing opinions.

So I'd really like to know who wouldn't take me seriously if I cited his work, and please don't tell me I wouldn't be taken seriously by the Kennedy Assassination Book-of-the-Month Club, because those folks have money to make off of their theories. I'm pretty sure McAdams has tenure.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Shadder Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 02:52 PM
Response to Reply #50
77. Money off of theories?
If you really think that that is the reason that after all this time we still see countless books with different theories on the subject you really don't have a clear understanding of whats really going on. They do come out for a reason but trust me, it's not to make money. Most of these books do not sell enough copies to cover the printing costs.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sofa king Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 11:45 PM
Response to Reply #77
118. ...Which tells me nothing about McAdams.
But thanks for keeping me in the dark while telling me I don't know what's going on.

You, ah, wouldn't happen to be an author, would you?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jobycom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 12:18 PM
Response to Reply #42
60. No, he's using links from the McAdams page.
If you dispute something in one of those links, do it with evidence, not with a Scott McClellan-esque attempt to ridicule the questioner instead of answering the question.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jobycom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 12:15 PM
Response to Reply #11
59. I've shot a muddy riverbank with a rifle and I don't agree with you.
ANd if you draw a clear trajectory forward from the direction his head snaps, you hit the front windshield. THAT would have been a magic bullet, to pass through the windshield without breaking it and somehow miss the guy in the passenger seat and John Connally to strike JFK, who was at this point hunching over from the throat wind.

Here's a link to the film of the head shot. (WARNING--GRAPHIC!): Notice the head moves forward, the brains come out of the front of his head moving forward, then his head snaps straight back, then it snaps to the right and further back.

http://www.john-f-kennedy.net/abrahamzapruderfilm.htm
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jimshoes Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 06:17 AM
Response to Original message
14. Nothing ever changes it seems
No matter what happens or what new evidence is brought to light, those that believe in the Lone Gunman will always believe in the Lone Gunman and those that believe in multiple shooters will always believe in multiple shooters. Nothing will change it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mod mom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 12:57 PM
Response to Reply #14
66. Wrong. Thing can change. For me it was witnessing the blatant theft of
the '04 election in Ohio and denial by the media and silence from the Dems. It made me start to question what else was paaed off as truth. The excellent threads started by Octafish were eye opening to me and changed my opinion on the subject. It takes an open mind and sometimes that requires a jolt of reality.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jimshoes Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 05:26 PM
Response to Reply #66
94. I am glad that you have proved me wrong
I was beginning to believe that most people had become so jaded on this subject that all further discussion was futile. Perhaps we may yet find out the truth of the JFK assassination. Thanks for your post. ;)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BootinUp Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 06:36 AM
Response to Original message
15. Here is the important part:
"We don't know if there were two bullets," said Randich. "There could have been two bullets, but the lead composition data shows there could be anywhere from one to five bullets."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 09:06 AM
Response to Reply #15
24. And right after that:
"The bullet found on the stretcher is missing some lead, but not enough to account for all the other fragments."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
exlrrp Donating Member (598 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 09:10 AM
Response to Reply #24
25. Kennedy's headshot came from the front
Anybody looking at the Zapruder film--and Ive seen it frame by frame-- can tell without doubt that kennedy's headshot came from the front. NO doubt about it at all. You can see his head snap backward, the brains flying out the back of his head. The brains and gore were all over the trunk of the car. I'm a Vietnam combat veteran, I saw more than one person hit in the head so I'm REAL sure about this.
There's no way in hell Oswald made that shot unless you believe the bullet turned 180 degrees. Someone else was firing from the grassy knoll, just like witnesses claim.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BootinUp Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 09:28 AM
Response to Reply #25
27. This was not high speed film
THere is plenty you don't see in between frames. You might want to read more about why your analysis is flawed.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 09:55 AM
Response to Reply #27
32. There's plenty to see after the shot;
brain matter and blood all over the trunk.

Though of course in lone gunman fairy land, human tissue splatters in the direction where the bullet came from...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BootinUp Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 10:16 AM
Response to Reply #32
35. I guess you missed the gieser
that sprung from his right forehead,(oh you think thats where the bullet entered) in the video frame where that happens his head/chin has already slammed into his chest, the head bounces back as a result of the impact to his chest. The camera did not catch the much of forward movemement because it was too fast for the camera to catch but that does not mean it didn't happen.

You stick to your story though in spite of studies that have answered these questions conclusively.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 10:32 AM
Response to Reply #35
36. So how do you explain the blood and brain matter on the trunk?
And how does anyone know about any head bouncing if it isn't on film? Does that fact that it is not on film mean that it did happen?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BootinUp Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 10:41 AM
Response to Reply #36
38. It's there, enough of it to reconstruct.
Edited on Mon Aug-21-06 11:02 AM by Jim4Wes
Note the position of the head more carefully. In the frame that is very blurred since the head is in motion (forward), when the first sign of wound is evident at the front of his head. Immediately in the next frames the head is on the chest. Then it moves back in a second motion that is slower and is captured in more frames.

It will become clear to you as it has to many that it moved forward and his chin impacted the chest before the backwards motion. One of the links posted here has a nice frame by frame viewing tool.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Barrett808 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 12:09 PM
Response to Reply #38
54. But didn't the FBI reverse some of the frames in the Z film?
Specifically to reverse the apparent direction of impact?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BootinUp Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 12:14 PM
Response to Reply #54
57. news to me.
Sounds like a conspiracy. ;)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Barrett808 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 12:28 PM
Response to Reply #57
62. Heh.
My view is that taken alone, the single-gunman theory can hold water. But taken with all the other odd facts, the conspiracy becomes the simplest explanation.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Zynx Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 03:52 PM
Response to Reply #36
86. The car is moving forward while the ejected material is meeting wind.
I'd expect some of it to fall on the trunk.

What I wouldn't expect is an entry wound to blow up like that without an exit wound that would literally take Kennedy's head completely off.

Entry wounds are very small, barely over bullet diameter. How people are shot in movies is extremely inaccurate, and results from the use of splatter packs.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
William Seger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 06:00 PM
Response to Reply #36
98. But it IS on the film
In the frame where we first see the hit, his head has snapped forward at least an inch or two from the previous frame. His chin appears to be on (or very close) to his chest at that point, which it is not in the frame before. If the shot was from the front right, that frame should already show the "back and to the left" motion -- the bullet itself has already imparted all the force that it can and is long gone. In the frame after that, his head is back about where it was before the hit. It's not until the frame after that that you start seeing the "back and to the left" motion. Things don't wait three movie frames to react to inertia from a bullet.

Someone posted a link to the Zapruder here a couple years ago and dared anyone to watch that film in slow motion and explain how the shot could have possible come from the back. I watched it and it seemed to me that the head first snapped forward very quickly before going back, so I found a site that had some good single frames. Sure enough, careful measurements with enlarged pics show the forward snap. I did some more research and found that, not surprisingly, the forward snap had been noticed before and there is at least one very accurate quantitative analysis. (And that was well before Stone's ridiculous movie.) But having done my own analysis, I really don't care how many times people insist the movie shows the exact opposite of what it shows or how many people believe it: The head snaps forward in the first frame after the hit and that proves the shot was from behind.

My problem with "conspiracy nuts" is that facts don't seem to matter if they don't support their theories, but unsubstantiated speculations are promoted to be facts if they do support their theories. Sure, they're entitled to their opinions, but starting from a conclusion and working backward looking only for validation and ignoring anything that doesn't fit is not a very reliable way to figure stuff out. If I'm ever falsely accused of a crime, I sincerely hope that such people are not on the jury.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BootinUp Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 06:49 PM
Response to Reply #98
103. I think the conspiracy theories
are less than a serious undertaking, more of a hobby. IOW if someones life depended on the verdict there would be less of this armwaving away of real evidence. But maybe I am being too kind. ;)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Shadder Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 07:43 PM
Response to Reply #103
105. I beg to differ with you
I've been a JFK researcher for the past 40 years. In that time I've read every book, article, whatever that has come out on the subject, as well as seen most video work. I've participated in numerous lectures and debates around the country. I've had the chance to view first hand much of the records and evidence in the case and inteveriw many of the people involved. I've also had the honor of sitting down with a former President of the United States and have a long discussion on the subject. All during the time I was doing this I viewed this as a hobby, nothing more. I know many more researchers that have done far more than I could ever hope to in this field. Some have been published, others not. But the vast majority of them would call this a hobby for themselves as well. But many of these people have been instrumental in uncovering facts and evidence that support both a single or lone gunman and more than one. Without them we might not be having this discussion.

Another hobby of mine is genealogy. And in this area if you are serious you learn rater quickly that many people in researching thier family tree will uncover previous research that leads to several different conclusions. We are taught not to simply accept the one that sounds best, but to do our own reearch, doccument it and try to discover the truth. This is exactly what many - to be sure not all or even most - of your so called conspircy theorists do. But to group them all together and imply that they are less serious than you or others that support yout beilef is both degrading and insulting.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BootinUp Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 07:54 PM
Response to Reply #105
106. You're right that was an unfair generalization.
However, you yourself believe that the debate was pointless to participate (you said something along those lines before) so you see closed minds unwilling to admit what is a fact and what is merely conjecture. Plus I have to tell you I observe that there is a great tendency for people to fear a government that is quite inept, but for some reason capable of amazing behind the scenes plotting that only they are smart enough to figure out. Its really bizarre at times.

So I should still be more considerate.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FogerRox Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 09:56 PM
Response to Reply #98
112. What was the Frames/second
IIRC 18 to 36 frames/second was available on my grandfathers home movie camera, IIRC 24 was the "default" setting.

"Things don't wait three movie frames to react to inertia from a bullet."

Please give me more than that to go on.


Even at 12 frames /second, thats about 1/4 second. & Wouldnt the bullets inertia have to overcome JFKs head inertia.

Or was JFKs last thought: incoming... get down....

Just like any combat vet would think.


Some people say JFK heard one shot...turned..looked right at the grasy knoll... & tried to duck. His hand stopped waving, thinking duck....

A big

WHATEVER

for this tripe.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BootinUp Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 10:54 PM
Response to Reply #112
117. 18.3 (from wikipedia page)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
William Seger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 11:50 PM
Response to Reply #112
119. Link
One of the links already posted on this page (http://www.assassinationscience.com/johncostella/jfk/in... ) has a much better image than mine, because frame 313 (immediately after the hit) has been un-blurred, so I'll post that:



The guy that wrote that article agrees that the head is seen to snap forward (and that the blood is being thrown forward), but since he "knows" the shot didn't come from behind, the only explanation is that the film has been altered!

> What was the Frames/second

The camera Zapruder used had a wind-up motor so the speed was not really constant, but it was approximately 18 frames per second. That would be about 1/6 second before the head is seen to move back and to the left, but the point is there wouldn't be any delay in seeing any motion inparted to the head by the bullet. Because:

> Wouldnt the bullets inertia have to overcome JFKs head inertia.

The bullet hit sometime between frame 312 and 313. Whatever energy and motion was imparted by the bullet has already happened by 313, and in 313 the head has moved forward. Any motion after that, especially one in the opposite direction, cannot be explained as a direct result of the bullet impact because it's no longer exerting any force. The fact that the bullet could only accelerate the head during that tiny fraction of a second that it was in physical contact, and that it needed to overcome the inertia of the head to impart any motion at all, explains why JFK wasn't thrown farther forward by the impact. (If the bullet had become lodged in the head, then all of its kinetic energy would have been transferred to the head, but that's not what happened.) As I said, if the shot had come from the front right, frame 313 would show the head having moved back and to the left. Seeing that motion 1/6 second later may not seem like very long, but it would defy the laws if physics if the motion caused by the bullet could be delayed any time at all.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Zynx Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 09:32 AM
Response to Reply #25
29. Ummm...No.
I responded to an earlier post on this matter. That is a lot of b.s.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 09:52 AM
Response to Reply #25
31. Many forensics experts agree with that
(and so do i)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stepnw1f Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 03:18 PM
Response to Reply #25
81. That's What I Saw Too
These naysayers are full of shit!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
a la izquierda Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 08:30 PM
Response to Reply #25
109. Stood in the middle of the street....
in Dallas, where the shots hit Kennedy and I have to say, it looks like a pretty tough shot to me. I'm not a gun person, but my husband knows a few things about shooting guns and he thought the shot was tough too. Granted, the tree blocking the street was much smaller, but there still would have been a tree in the way, yes?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rinsd Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-22-06 05:24 PM
Response to Reply #25
135. A combat veteran huh?
So I guess you would understand that an entry would would be alot smaller than an exit wound.

So how come the entire front rightside of Kennedy's head exploded if the shot came from the front?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FogerRox Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-23-06 11:00 PM
Response to Reply #135
151. Kick, see my pic down thread
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DiverDave Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 06:58 AM
Response to Original message
16. If you believe that one guy did it
I got some land in South Florida for sale, just a bit wet is all...

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BootinUp Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 07:26 AM
Response to Reply #16
18. convincing argument you make.
:sarcasm:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DiverDave Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 03:25 PM
Response to Reply #18
83. the evidence is out there...
why do you have to be like that?

Yeah, 1 mediocre shooter shot all those shots, from an inferior rifle.
All the folks pointing to the grassy knoll where wrong.
And a "magic bullet"?, yeah, they stop and change direction all the time...sheesh.
Yep, Oswald did it all alone.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BootinUp Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 03:31 PM
Response to Reply #83
84. I am disappointed that you haven't engaged more
in the discussion. Thats all. I believe there is some info in the thread that would be interesting for you. You obviously have a strong opinion, and yet there is stronger evidence than ever that debunks some of the issues you raise. cya
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Endangered Specie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 04:04 PM
Response to Reply #83
90. How exactly is a Mannlicher Carcano an "inferior" rifle?
In one model form or another they were the standard rifle of the Italian army for something like 50 years, no small feat. In this country it is usually considered 'bad' because, unlike Mausers, the Carcano does not lend itself well to being sporterized or chambered to some wildcat-magnum-merican-hunting-spitfire-und-gotterdammerung cartridge. However, it spits out 6.5x52 quite well.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lala_rawraw Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 08:26 AM
Response to Reply #16
21. the irony:)
operation 40, cough
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FogerRox Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 10:02 PM
Response to Reply #21
114. 40 yup, you got it.... from Cuba to Dallas to Watergate
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lala_rawraw Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 08:25 AM
Response to Original message
20. Mark Lane, read Mark Lane... NOW:)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Minstrel Boy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 09:59 AM
Response to Original message
33. It appalls me how many Democrats are still dead to the truth
that your greatest leaders of the past 50 years have been systematically eliminated.

Which direction? and How many shots? have always been distractions. Even Who pulled the trigger? is not the right question. The question should always have been, Who paid for the bullets? And you can best find the answer to that not by a close study of the events of the day, but of what went before, and what came after.

Here's one tiny fer instance:

have you ever heard of Regis Blahut? But I'm getting ahead of myself. Have you heard of Robert Groden?

Groden was a photographic consultant for the doomed House Select Committee on Assassinations. (To see just how doomed it was, you ought to read the account of its own frustrated chief investigator, Gaeton Fonzi.) He gave Chief Counsel and Patron Saint of the Limited Hangout, Robert Blakey, some serious grief.

Here's Groden talking, from Fonzi's book, The Last Investigation:

One of the first things I did was ask to see the autopsy photographs in the National Archives. I wanted to find out how it was that the Warren Commission concluded the shots came from the rear when all the doctors at Parkland Hospital, every one of them, wrote in their reports that Kennedy's head was blasted out. When I saw the autopsy photographs I was shocked. After years in photo optic work I knew what I saw, and what I saw was a matte line in the photograph of the back of the President's head. That's when two photographic elements come together visually and there's an overlap. I saw a soft edged matte insertion forgery of very high quality which made it appear as if there were a small wound of entry in the rear of the President's head.

After performing photo-optical tests on copies to confirm what he saw, Groden wrote a report about it to Blakey, saying that it was his professional opinion that the autopsy photographs of President Kennedy had been retouched.

Now, enter Regis Blahut.

Under the deal Blakey worked out with the CIA (which he never regarded so much as a material witness) for access to confidential records, the agency agreed that certain documents could be transferred to committee offices for examination, but only in a secure room under guard of a CIA representative. In an adjoining secure room was a safe containing evidence such as the autopsy photographs Groden had determined to be skillful hoaxes. Even committee staff were forbidden from touching them without Blakey's permission, and each visit to the safe was logged.

And here's Fonzi's account of what happened next:

One day, a staffer, with authorization, removed some photographs for study in another office and closed the safe but neglected to lock it. When she returned, she noted that one of the autopsy photographs, instead of being in its plastic jacket in its book, was loose and lying on top. It was as if someone had removed it for examination and then, perhaps hearing her return, quickly tossed the photograph back without putting it back in its protective jacket. Blakey called the FBI and a fingerprint check revealed that the person who had touched the photograph was Regis Blahut, the CIA's security representative. Confronted, Blahut first denied and then, after failing three polygraph tests, admitted he had handled the autopsy photo. Blakey later attributed Blahut's act to "curiosity," but Blahut blurted to a reporter, "There are other things involved that are detrimental to other things." The CIA fired him but, in the end, the committee never did find out what the incident was really all about, or whether it was related to any of Bob Groden's claims.

Claims, Fonzi adds, which Blakey never really confronted in his report.

"There are other things involved that are detrimental to other things." I don't even know how to begin parsing that. Still, to me, those inelegant words hang over recent American history like a thunderhead. Each official inquiry into the high crimes of the National Security State, from Warren to the reluctantly-struck 9/11 commission, has shown the dead hand of state-sanctioned cover-up: stonewalling, lies, supression and falsification of evidence, intimidation and murder of witnesses. With sleight of hand more adroit than the bumbling Blahut, the security apparatus sends the message, Don't go there.

America is well on its way to paying an apocalyptic price for not having gone there in the immediate aftermath of Kennedy's murder. The truth may have been too awful then, but in the 40 years since the crimes have only compounded, the lies become more fantastic, the cognitive dissonance more acute. The petro-fascists would never have seized power if Kennedy's killers had been brought to justice, because they are Kennedy's killers, all in spirit and some in deed.

Americans cannot forever ignore or excuse the CIA's perpetual tampering with the storehouse of their historical memory. There will be a reckoning for not going there, and it will be terrible.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mojowork_n Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 01:15 PM
Response to Reply #33
68. the dead hand of state-sanctioned cover-up
Wow, nice turn of phrase.

For being dead, that 'hand' sure keeps getting regular workouts, to this day.

I mean, if you were going to make up a list of how many times the spin, distortion,
put-up jobs, frames and assorted other "cover stories" have turned out not to be
true, I guess I'm shocked that most people's first instinct is still to give the
Official Report the benefit of the doubt.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BootinUp Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 01:56 PM
Response to Reply #68
72. why not jump into the real argument?
instead of hiding down here and implying that people don't have good reasons to defend their positions.

We won't bite. ;)

Clue: The issue of this thread is the lone gunmen scenario/theory and physical evidence related to it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DiverDave Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-22-06 10:19 AM
Response to Reply #33
122. NO AMOUNT of evidence
will change their minds...it was ONE GUY, GODDAMMIT, and we are a lunatics to think otherwise.

Like I said, the evidence is THERE, right in front of their noses!...but, they believe in "magic bullets" and other such fairy tales.

Move along, nothing to see here....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
David Zephyr Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 01:05 PM
Response to Original message
67. Too bad we can not question this one man.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hedgehog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 01:15 PM
Response to Original message
69. Regardless of what really happened, I think we can agree
that certain elements in and out of the US government breathed a sigh of relief that Kennedy was gone. I am convinced that he was smartening up fast and ready to take the country in a different direction. That is the truth of the Oliver Stone film even if every fact he shows is proven false. While some may ague that Kennedy wasn't going to change things, many people thought he was leading the change. That is why so many of us still revere him today. I myself wonder if the real assassination has been the constant drum of attacks on his character that we've all heard in recent years. How could any man have done half of what Kennedy is accused of doing (women & drugs) did and still be functional?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Maccagirl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 06:10 PM
Response to Reply #69
99. Great post, Hedgehog
In other, more ineloquent words-he pissed off the wrong people. I agree with your 2 basic points-JFK was perceived to be a threat to the powers-that be, and the assassination of his character continues to this day.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
happyslug Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-22-06 02:12 PM
Response to Reply #69
131. Hell no, LBJ became President.
LBJ was feared WAY MORE than JFK would ever have been. LBJ knew where ALL of the bodies were buried in Washington. IF anyone was going to get a Civil Rights Act through Congress it was LBJ. JFK knew this and put LBJ in charge of JFK's Panel of Civil Rights (Through then gave the panel and LBJ no powers). In many ways JFK was less feared than LBJ was. JFK had no power base other than as President (Unlike LBJ who in many ways had controlled the Senate in the 1950s and by the 1960s had people who owed him favors in charge of the Senate and the House). Once LBJ became President, he knew how to use that power to get what he wanted through Congress. The Classic case is the Civil Rights Act of 1964. For three months the US Government shut down as the Senate held an old-fashioned filibuster (The Filibuster was changed in the early 1970s after LBJ was dead, to the present 60 Senators needed to end the Filibuster AND that the Filibuster no longer shut down the Senate, the Senate now can go onto other business after a Filibuster was declared, that was NOT the case in 1964).

Anyway, the Southern Conservatives (Mostly if not all Southern Democrats, or ex-Democrats) disliked passing ANY Civil Rights Act and shut down the Government for Three months for LBJ would NOT give in to their demand NOT to pass a Civil Rights Act. JFK would have gave in the the Southern Conservatives, LBJ did not.

As to Vietnam, while there is indications that JFK did not want to go into Vietnam (Going back to the fall of Dien Bien Phu in 1954) I do NOT think he would have had any real choice (Just like LBJ did not really had a choice in decision to go into Vietnam). In 1949 China fell to the Communists, for the next three years the GOP accused Truman of have "Lost China". One of the reason for the Red Scare was to scare the American people not only to restrict rights at home, but to "Fight" the Communists abroad. JFK was even told by Eisenhower, on January 19th, 1961, that JFK will have to sent in troops to Vietnam to stop the Communists (Again there is evidence the JFK did not want to send in troops, but this is about his ABILITY to refuse to send in troops compared to what JFK wanted to do). After the Bay of Pigs, you had the majority of Americans wanted to STOP Communism (This did NOT change till the Tet Offensive of 1968). Thus in 1964-1965 pressure was building on the President (Whoever was PResident) to bail out the South Vietnamese Government. Whoever was President at the time Vietnam fell to the Communists would take the Political heat for such a defeat (As would his party). It is only with the Tet Offensive in 1968 that the Majority of American People came to believe the War in Vietnam was un-winnable, and even then Conservative and Moderate Democrat tended to support the war while the more liberal Democrats opposed the war.

My point here is even a master politicians like LBJ was forced to go into Vietnam, how could JFK NOT go into Vietnam? His own political party would have forced him to stay in and escalate the war (as did the Democrats did to LBJ, the Democrats were afraid of a renew red scare, and do not knock this fear, the Red Scare WORKED, it made Nixon VP and Eisenhower President in the 1952 election). Now LBJ is not completely innocent, his use of the Bay of Tonkin incident was brilliant (The US had been running South Vietnamese Commando units into southern North Vietnam, and when one of the Destroyers thought he saw a radar blip, he opened fire on that blip, this was reported to the Press and LBJ ordered retaliation against North Vietnam AND then had Congress pass the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution giving LBJ all the power he needed to send Troops to Vietnam). What would have JFK done in the same situation? JFK would have ordered the retaliatory attacks but would he have asked Congress for the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution? Probably would have. Would JFK mongered to get something like LBJ Great Society Plan passed at the same time? No.

People tend to forget that in the 1950s the Two members of he Senate who thought the most alike was JFK and Richard Nixon. LBJ was to the left of both of them as to economic issues (And while he was a Senator, LBJ also opposed Civil Rights legislation, you have to keep the voters back home happy with you). Thus the Conservative groups in the US OPPOSED LBJ much more than they opposed JFK, thus why would they knock off JFK to get LBJ as President? All types of conspiracies theory have attacked this dilemma, all without any satisfying reasoning. So LBJ fought for General Dynamics to get the F-111 Contracts, General Dynamics was a HUGE campaign contributor AND a huge employer in Texas, but General Dynamics was NOT going ot pay to kill JFK, for JFK did not really oppose the F-111. The same with the rest of the Defensive Contractors, JFK came from a starte with minimal Defense Contractors, LBJ came from a state with HUGE Military Contractors. That is the best reason for the difference in opinion when it came to Military Contracts, but to take that to the next step as to a dispute as HOW to use force is to huge a step without more than Campaign Contributions at stake.

Thus, given LBJ tendency to support Civil Rights and spend money on improving the condition of low income people with his Great Society Program, the Conservatives feared LBJ more than anything JFk wanted to do about Vietnam.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EVDebs Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-23-06 12:51 AM
Response to Reply #69
139. R's feared a Kennedy 'dynasty' just as we D's rightly fear Jeb, Marvin etc
somehow becoming the 'electable' R candidate in the future. I think the US has had enough of this particular family dynasty. At least the Kennedy's believed in noblesse oblige. Bush family has never heard the term.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Matilda Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-24-06 02:55 AM
Response to Reply #69
153. I agree that we need to look at all the surrounding events
to form an opinion on what happened that day.

I don't know guns and I'm not a scientist, so I can only read various opinions about bullets and
angles without adding my own comments, but other events are cause for concern and I can't help
but think that the single-bullet conclusion was formed to fit a pre-conceived theory, rather than
the final conclusion being the result of real scientific investigation.

I think we need to think about things like the hatred that some right-wing factions had for all
the Kennedys as a result of the policy directions he was beginning to take. At first he was
cautious and pragmatic, but by 1963, Civil Rights was on the agenda, and he was also making moves
towards an understanding with Cuba, and there was also the thaw - albeit small - in the relations
with the USSR. A lot of people, not just right-wing politicians but corporations and the military
in particular, would have found the prospect of peace very unsettling, to say the least.

And I have never been able to accept that a sleaze like Jack Ruby killed Oswald to "spare Mrs
Kennedy" - please! Oswald was killed to shut him up, that's very clear. The Oswald killing points
either to total disorganization on the part of the Dallas Police Force (how in hell did a man with
a gun get anywhere near the chief suspect?), or a carefully constructed opportunity for an assassin.

There are also things like the speed with which Oswald was identified - within about 15 minutes,
his name and description were out there - not impossible, but extremely unlikely.

Lots of other things - we've all read the books and seen the films, but when you put them all
together, looks like major conspiracy to me. And that sits very well with a single bullet theory.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
goforit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 04:50 PM
Response to Original message
91. Ahhh come on Poppy....Tell us that yah did it! No one will arrest you.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hedgehog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 05:25 PM
Response to Reply #91
93. Whoever did it has gone to the grave in silence.
The assassinations of John Kennedy and Martin Luther King will rival the story of the Princes in the Tower in a few generations. Who knows what will turn up, though. I've caught hints in recent writing that some scholars are now seriously considering that elements of the COnfederate government financed the conspiracy of John Wilkes Booth.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Minstrel Boy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 08:38 PM
Response to Reply #93
110. Not entirely true
Edited on Mon Aug-21-06 08:39 PM by Minstrel Boy
Many have gone to their graves, but some have spoken. It's just a matter of hearing them.

Here's one of their gravestones:



E Howard Hunt told Slate:

Slate: I know there is a conspiracy theory saying that David Atlee Phillipsthe Miami CIA station chiefwas involved with the assassination of JFK.
Hunt: I have no comment.
Slate: I know you hired him early on, to work with you in Mexico, to help with Guatemala propaganda.
Hunt: He was one of the best briefers I ever saw.
Slate: And there were even conspiracy theories about you being in Dallas the day JFK was killed.
Hunt: No comment.

Phillips was also known as "Maurice Bishop," (see Fonzi's The Last Investigation for much more), and helped far right anti-Castro Cuban orgs plot terrorist campaigns against the island. He was also seen with Oswald the summer of 1963.

Dick Russell tells in The Man Who Knew Too Much, that when Phillips was dying of cancer in 1988, his brother James asked him at the end of a telephone conversation: "Were you in Dallas on that day?" David began to cry, and answered "Yes."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
eridani Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 10:01 PM
Response to Original message
113. John Connally weighs in
http://bohemian.com/bohemian/06.14.06/david-ray-griffin...

As a postscript to my interview with David Ray Griffin, I am reminded of a March 30 article by journalist Doug Thompson published on OpEdNews.com. In it, Thompson recalls a 1981 encounter with the late John Connally, the former governor of Texas who was wounded in the Kennedy assassination. In an unguarded moment, Thompson asked Connally, "Do you think Lee Harvey Oswald fired the gun that killed Kennedy?"

"Absolutely not," Connally said. "I do not, for one second, believe the conclusions of the Warren Commission."

"So why not speak out?" Thompson asked.

"I will never speak out publicly about what I believe," Connally replied, "because I love this country and we needed closure at the time."

Now here we are more than 40 years after that devastating perpetration and we have to wonder, how well did "closure" serve us? As we see daily the fruits of self-serving secrecy and unchecked power, it might be time for some disclosure instead.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BootinUp Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 10:39 PM
Response to Reply #113
116. So say he took the opposite position, what difference would that
have made really? Not much.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sofa king Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-22-06 01:45 AM
Response to Reply #113
120. I think he believed that from the second he was hit.
Some lip-readers claim that in the Zapruder film, Connally can be seen saying, "They're gonna kill us all!"
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pitohui Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-22-06 01:53 AM
Response to Original message
121. wow what was their first clue?
but i'm glad that scientists are finally looking at this, even tho it's disgusting that they're only doing it because it's too late to matter any more
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
goclark Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-22-06 12:54 PM
Response to Original message
127. If they can prove that JFK was no shot by just LHO

that would go a long way, IMO, to allowing America to see the big picture.


The picture that involves a NeoCon connection and control of power By Any Means Necessary since the 1960's.

The fact that keeps going through my mind is IF Hinkley had killed Reagan, POPPY would have been our President. Huuum
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Algorem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-22-06 01:15 PM
Response to Original message
128. Wecht pleased with new JFK information
Edited on Tue Aug-22-06 01:15 PM by Algorem
http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/news/cit...

By Michael Hasch
TRIBUNE-REVIEW
Tuesday, August 22, 2006

Dr. Cyril H. Wecht said Monday that he is "delighted" by new research that casts further doubt on the theory that Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone in the assassination of President John F. Kennedy.

But the former Allegheny County coroner, who is one of the foremost critics of the "single-bullet theory," admits that a definitive answer to the question of "who shot JFK?" is probably years away.

The research by Lawrence Livermore Laboratory scientists Pat Grant and Erik Randich does not prove there was a second gunman, Wecht said.

Rather, Wecht said, it shows that neutron activation analysis does not prove that all the bullet fragments -- recovered from Kennedy's brain, the presidential limousine, Texas Gov. John Connally's wrist and a hospital stretcher -- came from bullets fired by Oswald's gun Nov. 22, 1963...





Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
IChing Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-22-06 02:00 PM
Response to Reply #128
130. Thanks for the update, the detractors on this thread work for
prestigious scientific organizations like the original post

;-) :sarcasm:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Algorem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-28-06 09:23 PM
Response to Reply #130
154. Thank you.Skepticism appears to be a religion.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FogerRox Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-23-06 10:49 PM
Response to Original message
149. Clearly shows the back of JFKs head blown apart


I joined DU because I am a DEM.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FogerRox Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-23-06 10:51 PM
Response to Reply #149
150. yeah sure...
Someone made a point about Kennedy's head snapping forward as his brain splattered. I don't know if that's actually a good description of what happened, but his head did move forward slightly. If someone wants to argue that it's consistent with a shot to the front, which somehow necessitated a violent reflex action backwards, the more plausible scenario is the other way around. In other words, Kennedy's head was probably slumping forward when the bullet hit his temple, and the effects of the momentum were delayed.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Wed Sep 03rd 2014, 02:19 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Latest Breaking News Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC