Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Case Closed- Conspiracy: The Dallas Doctors vs. JFK’s Autopsy Photographs

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 » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU
 
TruthIsAll Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-24-03 10:12 PM
Original message
Case Closed- Conspiracy: The Dallas Doctors vs. JFK’s Autopsy Photographs
Edited on Mon Nov-24-03 11:06 PM by TruthIsAll
Here it is: Proof JFK was shot in the front. And how the HSCA mistated the testimony of the Dallas doctors.

Read this and weep for our once great nation. As I have been weeping for 40 years.

Did ABC show you this? Of course not. How could they? No one would ever believe their resurrected Warren Commission, Posner, McAdam drivel.

HSCA...The (H)ouse's (S)econd (C)overup of the (A)ssassination, perpetuating the Oswald myth, but throwing out a few crumbs to the conspiracy "buffs", by claiming yes, there was a second gunman..who MISSED! These guys had their own Bushit crew way back in 1978!

OK, all you Oswald Lone Nutters, you naysayers, you coincidence buffs...

REFUTE THIS!

http://www.history-matters.com/essays/jfkmed/How5Invest...

The Dallas Doctors vs. JFK’s Autopsy Photographs
As previously mentioned, multiple independent and contemporaneous accounts from credible witnesses, especially the treating Dallas doctors, said JFK’s fatal injury was a gaping right-rearward skull wound. The HSCA’s forensic experts took special note of Dallas accounts. Then, as now, Parkland Hospital was a highly regarded trauma center, its physicians thoroughly trained and experienced trauma experts.

Though perhaps it should have, it apparently never occurred to the Warren Commission that both the Parkland witnesses and JFK’s pathologists had described JFK’s rearward skull wounds in much the same way, but in a manner that was difficult to reconcile with an assassin firing from above and behind. Only after the autopsists had examined the photographs, and after the Clark Panel had noted an apparent, huge discrepancy between the photographs and the autopsy report, did a crack begin to appear in the medical case for Oswald’s sole guilt. The Clark Panel simply closed that crack by dismissing the rearward location of the skull injuries on the grounds that the autopsy doctors, who were teaching professors, had made a mistake. They were insensitive to the peculiarity that if it was indeed an error, it was a huge one that had also been made in Dallas by a team of seasoned trauma experts that included a professor of brain surgery. It was the kind of mistake for which a guilty first year resident physician-pathologist, to say nothing of professors, would have been seriously faulted.



Drawing of rear head wound made under the direction of Dr. McClelland of Parkland Hospital.
(see ARRB MD #264)



For their parts, the Parkland witnesses virtually unanimously described JFK’s skull injuries in a way that echoed the description of the senior treating physician, Neurosurgery professor Kemp Clark, MD. On the day of the murder, after examining JFK’s head wound, Dr. Clark wrote that, “There was a large wound beginning in the right occiput extending into the parietal region,” he wrote, “Much of the skull appeared gone at the brief examination....”<271> (Emphasis added.) Clark’s claim of a rearward skull defect was also repeated by Parkland witnesses Drs. Marion Thomas Jenkins, Malcolm Perry, Robert McClelland, Charles Carrico, Ronald Coy Jones, Gene Aiken, Paul Peters, Charles Rufus Baxter, Robert Grossman, Richard Brooks Dulaney, Fouad Bashour, and others.<272> (See Table 1) Intriguingly, Dr. Clark’s account is a reasonable match to the autopsy report’s description of a ‘parietal-temporal-occipital’ skull defect. It does not, however, match the autopsy photographs. They show an “antero-lateral” defect – a defect in front of JFK’s right ear involving the top of his head, but with no visible defect behind the ear. (See Figure 7) Thus, it is nowhere near the occipital area specified in the autopsy report or by the Parkland doctors. Admitting that the conflict was a problem, the HSCA boasted that it had solved it.

HSCA Refutes Dallas Doctors on JFK’s Head Wound
The HSCA devoted considerable attention to resolving the conflict between the autopsy photographs and the Dallas doctors. Summarizing its solution to the paradox, the HSCA wrote, “Critics of the Warren Commission’s medical evidence findings have found (sic) on the observations recorded by the Parkland Hospital doctors. They believe it is unlikely that trained medical personnel could be so consistently in error regarding the nature of the wound, even though their recollections were not based on careful examinations of the wounds ... In disagreement with the observations of the Parkland doctors are the 26 people present at the autopsy. All of those interviewed who attended the autopsy corroborated the general location of the wounds as depicted in the photographs; none had differing accounts … it appears more probable that the observations of the Parkland doctors are incorrect.”<273> (Emphasis added.) The HSCA said that its conclusion was supported by, “Staff interviews with persons present at the autopsy.” Unfortunately, none of those interviews were released with the release of the report in 1979.

HERE IT IS FOLKS: ************************************************************
Excerpt from page 37 of the Forensic Pathology Panel's report, citing interviews with autopsy witnesses which were purported to contradict the Dallas physicians. This assertion is completely false - in fact, now-declassified interview records show, autopsy witnesses generally corroborated the Dallas accounts.
**************************************************************


Once-secret documents, made public in the 1990s, show that the HSCA misrepresented both what the autopsy witnesses told the Warren Commission as well as what they had told the HSCA. Rather than contradicting Parkland witnesses that there was a rear defect in JFK's skull, the suppressed interviews reveal that the Bethesda witnesses corroborated them. They not only described a rear defect to HSCA in writing and verbally, they also drew diagrams of a defect in the rear of Kennedy’s skull, which the HSCA had also suppressed. By falsely representing the data, including its own interviews, HSCA writers inaccurately portrayed autopsy witnesses as refuting the Dallas witnesses who in fact they had corroborated. (See Table 2) Had it not been for the Oliver Stone-inspired JFK Review Board, public access to these inconvenient interviews and diagrams, which had no national security value whatsoever, was to have been restricted for 50 years, until 2028.

This stunning suppression of contradictory evidence, which as we shall see included withholding it from the very medical experts responsible for conducting the HSCA’s analyses of autopsy and other medical evidence, is by itself sufficient reason to call into question the HSCA’s entire medical position. But misstating and suppressing the nonsensitive assertions of its own witnesses was not all the HSCA did to impeach witness accounts of a gaping rearward wound in JFK’ skull.

The HSCA also said it had validated compelling autopsy photographs that show no defect where myriad credible witnesses, both in Dallas and in the morgue, say they saw one. The images show a gaping wound in front of JFK’s right ear and toward the top of the front of his skull. The back of the skull is virtually pristine. The authenticated autopsy images gave the HSCA powerful ammunition to shoot down witnesses who said JFK’s skull gaping skull wound was in the rear. But the HSCA was apparently shooting blanks, a fact the HSCA apparently preferred to leave hidden until the required declassification date in 2028.

For, whereas the HSCA boasted of the authenticity of JFK’s autopsy photographs, a new document reveals that in fact those images flunked a key HSCA authentication test: the pictures failed a test intended to link them to the camera in the Navy morgue that was supposed to have taken them. The images never were, therefore, authenticated. Nor, apparently, will they ever be. The morgue camera that the Navy sent to the HSCA for the tests disappeared sometime after the examination.

more..
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
wheresthemind Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-24-03 10:31 PM
Response to Original message
1. wow....
well now where are all the experts?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TruthIsAll Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-25-03 12:17 AM
Response to Reply #1
14. REAR DEFECT!: The autopsy witnesses corroborated the Parkland doctors!
"Once-secret documents, made public in the 1990s, show that the HSCA misrepresented both what the autopsy witnesses told the Warren Commission as well as what they had told the HSCA. Rather than contradicting Parkland witnesses that there was a rear defect in JFK's skull, the suppressed interviews reveal that the Bethesda witnesses corroborated them".

THAT IS THE WHOLE ENCHILADA!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JustJoe Donating Member (535 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-25-03 09:54 PM
Response to Reply #14
62. A good link on the wounds, Parkland vs. Bethesda, and the HSCA
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TruthIsAll Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-25-03 10:58 PM
Response to Reply #62
68. The(earlier) Parkland doctor's sketch vs. the (later) autopsy photo
Edited on Tue Nov-25-03 11:05 PM by TruthIsAll
Drawing of rear head wound made under the direction of Dr. McClelland of Parkland Hospital.


The autopsy photo, which can never be verified, for the camera was never found.


Was the photo touched up to hide the gaping hole in the back of the head and make it appear as a small entrance wound? Or was the original sketch just a figment of the doctor's imagination?

It must be one or the other. Do you believe the doctor's initial rendering, or the missing camera?

You be the judge.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TruthIsAll Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-26-03 05:44 PM
Response to Reply #68
73. Do you believe the doctor's initial rendering, or the missing camera?
Kick..
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JustJoe Donating Member (535 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-26-03 06:02 PM
Response to Reply #73
74. You look to be asking me, so...
I believe the drawing by/for the Dallas Doc. I'm not sure
what you mean by "missing camera." I believe the
autopsy photos of the back of the head are fakes and bad
fakes at that. The Dallas Docs are the key. They forced
me to choose between what they saw and what they said they
saw (big wound in rightrear, no wound in front)
and what the Zapruder film depicted, for starters.
And then there are the differences between the
body at Parkland and at Bethesda.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
PaDUer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-24-03 10:47 PM
Response to Original message
2. TX....
oh yes...remember the Baxter autopsy..am not surprised..
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
PaDUer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-24-03 10:49 PM
Response to Original message
3. Here's more..
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ramblin_dave Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-24-03 10:54 PM
Response to Original message
4. Too many contradictions to decide for sure
This page gives an alternative point of view:

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

Th more I read the less I can say I believe for sure.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Media_Lies_Daily Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-24-03 11:00 PM
Response to Reply #4
5. McAdams has been a Warren Commission apologist for decades...
...and he is very slick in the way he presents the information on his website.

If you trust anything McAdams has to say, you're going down the wrong road, IMHO.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TruthIsAll Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-24-03 11:02 PM
Response to Reply #4
6. Have you read about McAdams, a confirmed liar? Do you believe him
or the testimony of the Dallas doctors?

Unfortunately, even the HSCA could not handle the TRUTH.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ramblin_dave Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-24-03 11:08 PM
Response to Reply #6
7. Where is it confirmed he's a liar?
All I can say is that his site (and others) show other representations of the head wound.



The 1st, 3rd and 4th above depict what could be shots to the back of the head that conform to what is seen on the Zapruder film and others. The 2nd one, that you showed, is inconsistent with a shot from the rear. But which of these is most authoritative and why?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TruthIsAll Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-24-03 11:20 PM
Response to Reply #7
10. You are showing diagrams presented to fool you into thinking
Edited on Mon Nov-24-03 11:28 PM by TruthIsAll
JFK was shot from behind. Read the text in my post.

Look at the autopsy photos. They were obviously touched up and show virtually ZERO damage to the back of the head - to make it appeaar it was an entrance wound.

Once again. Read the text. Read how the HSCA conveniently ignored the statements of the Dallas doctors, which AGREED with the statements of those present at the autopsy.

THE BACK OF THE HEAD WAS BLOWN OUT. IT WAS AN EXIT WOUND.

PLEASE READ THE TEXT.





Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
A-Schwarzenegger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-25-03 12:28 AM
Response to Reply #7
16. The 2nd one was the only one drawn by a witness to the wound?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
William Seger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-25-03 12:43 AM
Response to Reply #16
19. No, it wasn't
That's one of the deceptions that the conspiracy hucksters like to foist on people like TruthIsAll, but it was actually drawn from a verbal description by one of the Parkland doctors, and that doctor does not agree that it is accurate. Anyway, the Parkland doctors did not attempt any forensic examination; they just tried to save his life.

The other three are based on the autopsy photos and x-rays.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Malva Zebrina Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-25-03 06:50 PM
Response to Reply #19
38. So, based on the autopsy photos and x-rays
an arrow was present that tells everyone that the shot came from the back? Where in the autopsy photos, do you see an arrow? LOL Obviously someone has seem fit to insert an arrow that determines where the shot was coming from and it has to come from the rear, as conventional wisdom decreed.

The autopsy photos are vague and do not demonstrate anything conclusive as to which direction the fatal shot came from.

They are just simply, non explanatory. They are sensational, but are not clear. In other words, the autopsy photos, besides not matching the drawings, show nothing at all. We cannot derive from those photos, where, even, the wound was!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
William Seger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-25-03 07:39 PM
Response to Reply #38
42. Completely wrong.
A bullet hole though a skull is similar to a rock hole in a windshield: because of the pressure wave created, the hole is cone shaped, with the "fat" end pointing away from the point of impact. By visual examination, confirmed by the x-rays, the autopsy doctors found a completely unambiguous entry wound in the rear of the skull and an exit wound in the front. Read the autopsy report and the various investigation testimonies; there was absolutely no doubt about it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-26-03 06:24 PM
Response to Reply #42
75. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
William Seger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-27-03 02:12 AM
Response to Reply #75
87. Does calling me a liar...
... make you feel better about buying a load of horseshit from the conspiracy hucksters?

Here's my proof, from the WC report. You don't believe it? Wooooo, that's an impressive argument. What I find absolutely frightening is that you might be on a jury someday when someone's life depends on your critical thinking skills.

http://www.jfk-assassination.de/WCR/wcr3.html#p12


The detailed autopsy of President Kennedy performed on the night of November 22 at the Bethesda Naval Hospital led the three examining pathologists to conclude that the smaller hole in the rear of the President's skull was the point of entry and that the large opening on the right side of his head was the wound of exit. The smaller hole on the back of the President's head measured one-fourth of an inch by five-eighths of an inch (6 by 15 millimeters). The dimensions of that wound were consistent with having been caused by a 6.5-millimeter bullet fired from behind and above which struck at a tangent or an angle causing a 15-millimeter cut. The cut reflected a larger dimension of entry than the bullet's diameter of 6.5 millimeters, since the missile, in effect, sliced along the skull for a fractional distance until it entered. The dimension of 6 millimeters, somewhat smaller than the diameter of a 6.5-millimeter bullet, was caused by the elastic recoil of the skull which shrinks the size of an opening after a missile passes through it.

Lt. Col. Pierre A. Finck, Chief of the Wound Ballistics Pathology Branch of the Armed Forces Institute of Pathology, who has had extensive experience with bullet wounds, illustrated the characteristics which led to his conclusions about the head wound by a chart prepared by him. This chart, based on Colonel Finck's studies of more than 400 cases, depicted the effect of a perforating missile wound on the human skull. When a bullet enters the skull (cranial vault) at one point and exits at another, it causes a beveling or cratering effect where the diameter of the hole is smaller on the impact side than on the exit side. Based on his observations of that beveling effect on the President's skull, Colonel Finck testified: "President Kennedy was, in my opinion, shot from the rear. The bullet entered in the back of the head and went out on the right side of his skull... he was shot from above and behind."

Comdr. James J. Humes, senior pathologist and director of laboratories at the Bethesda Naval Hospital, who acted as chief autopsy surgeon, concurred in Colonel Finck's analysis. He compared the beveling or coning effect to that caused by a BB shot which strikes a pane of glass, causing a round or oval defect on the side of the glass where the missile strikes and a belled-out or coned-out surface on the opposite side of the glass. Referring to the bullet hole on the back of President Kennedy's head, Commander Humes testified: "The wound on the inner table, however, was larger and had what in the field of wound ballistics is described as a shelving or coning effect." After studying the other hole in the President's skull, Commander Humes stated: "...we concluded that the large defect to the upper right side of the skull, in fact, would represent a wound of exit." Those characteristics led Commander Humes and Comdr. J. Thornton Boswell, chief of pathology at Bethesda Naval Hospital, who assisted in the autopsy, to conclude that the bullet penetrated the rear of the President's head and exited through a large wound on the right side of his head.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Media_Lies_Daily Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-27-03 02:32 AM
Response to Reply #87
90. No, that's not what I'm looking for...where is the documentation...
...on which this portion of the Warren Report was written? You should know better than trying to pass off a written summary as evidence, shouldn't you?

No documentation, no credit.

Here's a hint...there was no entry wound on the back of JFK's skull, but there was an entry wound on JFK's back 5.5 inches below the location of JFK's shirt collar.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
William Seger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-27-03 02:48 AM
Response to Reply #90
94. It's based on "Appendix IX - Autopsy Report and Supplemental Report"
What, you're only interested in "documentation" that's accepted by the conspiracy hucksters, right? In other words, if you choose to disbelieve the autopsy report, then you reserve the right to claim that it's not even "documentation?" Is that your "argument?"

http://www.jfk-assassination.de/WCR/app9.html


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TruthIsAll Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-25-03 12:44 AM
Response to Reply #16
20. The second one was drawn by a Parkland doctor on 11/22/63.
The others were concocted later so as to blame it on Oswald - shooting from the rear. They were faked, just like the autopsy photos, which show ZERO damage to the back of the head, believe it or not. Google JFK autopsy photos.

Tell me. How do you reconcile the early drawing with the later photos? You can't. Unless there was a coverup.

Case closed.
Which one do you believe?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Octafish Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-25-03 12:42 AM
Response to Reply #7
18. McAdams is a turd in the mold of Posner...
...and that's what those who love him say.

Targeting Camelot: The McAdams Official FAQ

http://www.geocities.com/justicewell/faq.htm
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TruthIsAll Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-25-03 11:10 PM
Response to Reply #7
69. No, #2 conforms to Zapruder; the others to the Magic Bullet theory
Edited on Tue Nov-25-03 11:20 PM by TruthIsAll
You have it backwards.. the shot was from the FRONT, not the BACK..

That is the essence of the coverup - to manufacture the evidence to fit the Lone Nut Theory.

Unfortunately for the warren and HSCA "investigators", the Parkland doctors and autopsy attendees agreed that they saw an EXIT wound.

How did the HSCA handle this? By claiming that they were all mistaken. All wrong. Right.

And we are expected to swallow this fiction?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Gloria Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-24-03 11:12 PM
Response to Original message
8. Dr. Carrico, who was a member of the team, was on the Oral History
thing on CSpan....He said that they should have described the wound as being more toward the side and front....temporal area and side, rather than occipital.....

He also revealed that they never looked at the back of Kennedy's head...they never rolled the body over. They ran their hands up his back to see if there was anything noticeable there, but didn't find anything.
So, they missed the small wounds on his back AND the small hole at the base of his neck. The only wounds they dealt with were on the head and at the throat.

Carrico said that their job was to try to save the patient, not do a forensic exam. They also expected the autopsy to be done in Dallas...but the body was whisked away.

He said that now things are done differently. They know now that medical notes can also be used as if they are forensic reports...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
William Seger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-24-03 11:19 PM
Response to Original message
9. Still waiting for you to explain this:
Can you, or can you not, explain why this looks exactly like a shot from the rear, with the head snapping forward?



Can you, or can you not, explain why this looks exactly like the "official" description of the wound and not at all like your drawing?



If you're not going to even attempt to explain these, then I really think you need to change your handle.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TruthIsAll Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-24-03 11:26 PM
Response to Reply #9
11. I suggest you put your 2 inches away and comment on the text here .
Listen to the Parkland doctors. Listen to the autopsy witnesses who corroborated them. Of course, the HSCA handled this by saying that the doctors were "mistaken".

Sure.

Seger. REFUTE THE TEXT. AND PUT THOSE SILLY CLIPS AWAY.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
William Seger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-24-03 11:45 PM
Response to Reply #11
12. In other words....
... actual physical evidence means nothing to "conspiracy nuts"?

The text has been refuted, dozens of times: The physical evidence is far more convincing that the verbal descriptions of impressions formed by some of the people who just looked at a god-awful bloody messy lying on an ER table.

And it isn't that the Zapruder film is the most important piece, not by a long shot. By careful examination, with no clue what the Zapruder film shows, the autopsy doctors found a wound in the back of the head that they said could only be an entry wound, and a clear exit wound in the front, and a description of the overall headwound matching that image above.

So, if you're going to duck out again on explaining how a shot from the front explains those images, does this mean that you will be changing your handle?

Are you taking suggestions?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TruthIsAll Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-25-03 12:00 AM
Response to Reply #12
13. The description of the head wounds presented by the Dallas doctors
Edited on Tue Nov-25-03 12:49 AM by TruthIsAll
along with those at the autopsy is not to be trusted?

You say:
The text has been refuted, dozens of times: The physical evidence is far more convincing that the verbal descriptions of impressions formed by some of the people who just looked at a god-awful bloody messy lying on an ER table.

WHAT A RIDICULOUS STATEMENT. YOU ARE RAPIDLY SINKING IN A SWAMP OF DENIAL. SO NOW YOU WISH TO DISREGARD THE SWORN TESTIMONY OF DALLAS DOCTORS?

You say:
And it isn't that the Zapruder film is the most important piece, not by a long shot. By careful examination, with no clue what the Zapruder film shows, the autopsy doctors found a wound in the back of the head that they said could only be an entry wound, and a clear exit wound in the front, and a description of the overall headwound matching that image above.

THAT IS NOT WHAT THEY SAID. THEY SAID EXACTLY THE OPPOSITE UNDER OATH. THEY SAID THE BACK OF THE HEAD WAS BLOWN OUTWARDS. SEE THE SKETCH. GET YOUR FACTS STRAIGHT. READ THE TEXT.

So, if you're going to duck out again on explaining how a shot from the front explains those images, does this mean that you will be changing your handle?

I AM NOT DUCKING OUT OF ANYTHING. YOU ARE. I HAVE SEEN THE ZAPRUDER FILM MANY TIMES. EACH TIME JFK IS SHOT IN THE FRONT RIGHT SIDE AND FALLS VIOLENTLY BACK. TO THE LEFT. BACK. TO THE LEFT. EACH TIME. YOUR STILLS ARE A JOKE.

NOW WHY DON'T YOU GO BACK AND READ THE TEXT?

Are you taking suggestions?
I HAVE PRESENTED EVIDENCE WHICH YOU HAVE REJECTED OUT OF HAND WITH TYPICAL NAYSAYER ARROGANCE. YOU IGNORE THE SIMPLE FACT THAT THE HSCA MISTATED THE TESTIMONY REGARDING THE HEAD WOUND FROM BOTH THE PARKLAND DOCTORS AND THOSE AT THE AUTOPSY WHO CORROBORATED.

WHAT THE DOCTORS SAY NOW IS IRRELEVANT. WHAT MATTERS IS WHAT THEY SAID 1)IMMEDIATELY ON 11/22/63, 2)UNDER OATH AT THE CLAY SHAW TRIAL IN 1969, AND 3) AT THE HSCA IN 1978.

THE INITIAL MCLELLAND SKETCH OF THE HEAD WOUND SPEAKS FOR ITSELF. IT IS CLEARLY A MASSIVE EXIT WOUND. OF COURSE, JFK WAS ALSO SHOT IN THE THROAT. FROM THE FRONT. AND IN THE BACK. THAT'S THREE SHOTS. AND DON'T TELL ME THE MAGIC BULLET WENT THROUGH JFK'S BACK INTO CONNALLY.
DON'T SAY THAT. BECAUSE THERE WAS NO EXIT OF THE BACK WOUND WHICH HIT 6 INCHES BELOW THE NECK.

SO THERE IT IS. MINIMUM FOUR (4) SHOTS. TWO FROM THE FRONT.

OSWALD DID IT? RIGHT. GIVE ME A BREAK.

IF YOU CHOOSE TO BELIEVE THE DOCTORED PHOTOS, GO RIGHT AHEAD.

UNLESS YOU CAN REFUTE THE TEXT WITH MORE THAN JUST CLAIMING THAT THE OPERATING TABLE WAS A MESS AND THE DOCTORS HAD NO CLUE WHAT THEY HAD IN FRONT OF THEM, I HAVE NOTHING FURTHER TO SAY.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
William Seger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-25-03 12:24 AM
Response to Reply #13
15. If you're going to try to shout me down....
... you need to type louder than that.

I've answered your demand that I refute that text, your dismissal of that refutation notwithstanding. I wasn't expecting you to accept it, and I couldn't care less. It's quite understandable that you would like to drag the discussion into irrelevancies, but I'm not obliged to follow you there.

Now, can you, or can you not, explain why those images seem to show a shot from the rear, and a head wound that matches the "official" description that you reject? If you can't, just say so.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TruthIsAll Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-25-03 12:37 AM
Response to Reply #15
17. i am not trying to shout you down. only to distinguish my responses.
"It's quite understandable that you would like to drag the discussion into irrelevancies, but I'm not obliged to follow you there".

You say irrelevant. Of course, you guys always say that when you have no response. Just avoid the issue.

I have told you already that the only Zapruder proof is to WATCH THE FILM. The moving video. Your selected still shots are a diversion. You cannot fool anyone with that canard.

Sorry, Bud. Anyone reading this thread with an open mind can see right through you and your specious strawman.

I know, Facts hurt. Logic hurts. You have been reduced to calling everything you can't refute as "irrelevant". That is to be expected. You avoid discussion of the FACTS presented in the text. That is to be expected, also. You can't stand the facts.

Your magic bullet theory, like everything else, has been demolished.

Give it up. Admit defeat. The 75% of Americans who are conspiracy "nuts", or "freaks" or "buffs", will gladly welcome you to the fold.


"drag the discussion into irrelevances"
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
William Seger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-25-03 01:12 AM
Response to Reply #17
23. You're cratering
You say irrelevant. Of course, you guys always say that when you have no response. Just avoid the issue.

I answered your issue, and I'll answer it again, just to show how little respect you really have for the truth: The physical evidence outweighs the remembered impressions of some of the people, who didn't do a detailed forensic examination in the first place. You don't like that answer? What a surprise, and big f'ing deal. That doesn't give you the right to lie about me not having a response and avoiding your silly "issue", when my response is right there in black and white.

I have told you already that the only Zapruder proof is to WATCH THE FILM. The moving video. Your selected still shots are a diversion. You cannot fool anyone with that canard.

Yep, in fact it was a posting of yours that caused me to go watch the film in real-time. And it was seeing that forward head-snap that caused me to look at the stills to see if it was real. Clearly, it is there, and it destroys the argument that you've been trying to advance about "back and to the left", which clearly comes after the shot and after that forward snap. That's why you now have to duck the issue: it indicates a shot from the rear, and there's no way in hell you'll ever give up your preconceived notion about that -- evidence be damned.

And to belabor the obvious, the other image I've posted now directly refutes what you're trying to claim in this thread. What does it matter what some of the doctors thought they saw, when the Zapruder image matches the official autopsy description?

If you really gave a damn about the truth, you'd understand why these are not "diversions".

Sorry, Bud. Anyone reading this thread with an open mind can see right through you and your specious strawman.

Well, I think you're about half right.

I know, Facts hurt. Logic hurts.

Really? Ah, that would explain it then... My sincere apologies for causing you so much pain, but no pain, no gain.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Nederland Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-25-03 02:36 PM
Response to Reply #23
35. Wrong Tree
First of all, I agree with you: the head shot came from behind.

However, I think you are focusing on the wrong thing to prove this point. The most undeniable piece of evidence that the Zapruder film reveals is not that the head snaps forward from the bullet (although you are correct in pointing this out), but that the President's brain matter is seen spewing forward. There is no possible theory to explain why a frontal shot would result in forward blood spray. Blood spray always follows the path of the bullet because that is the direction of all the momentum and energy. If the bullet entered from the front, the spray would be out the back. Since the spray is undeniably and overwhelmingly out the front, the bullet had to have come from behind. There is no other explanation, even so called "explosive tipped" bullets would not behave this way.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
William Seger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-25-03 06:43 PM
Response to Reply #35
37. It's the two things together...
... in the same frame. Together, those two facts prove that the "shot from the grassy knoll" theory is the one that's at odds with the laws of physics, and it simply cannot explain what the film clearly shows. (And we already know which theory matches the physical evidence from the skull.)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-26-03 06:26 PM
Response to Reply #37
76. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-27-03 02:34 AM
Response to Reply #76
91. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
9215 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-25-03 02:14 PM
Response to Reply #17
34. I agree Truth, those stills are only, well,.....
part of the picture.

I wonder why the whole assasination was never modeled and reinacted in the US. Apparently the Soviets did a reconstruction of the assasination and could not duplicate the Warren Commission findings. From what I remember no one was able to duplicate Oswald's purported feat.

I didn't mean to take it off topic here.

Great work Truth.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Octafish Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-25-03 12:48 AM
Response to Reply #12
21. Call me a "conspiracy nut," I don't care. You're still wrong.
One frame, taken out of context, proves nothing. The movement forward may be explained by the Secret Service driver slamming on the brakes, thinking the shots were coming from the front. From what eyewitnesses at the hospital saw of the limousine, there was a clean bullet hole in the front glass.

Now, regarding the taking stuff out of context part. People who watch the Zapruder film cannot help but see that the moment the President's head explodes, he moves in a direction away from the explosion. My friends who know more about this than me say it looks like the President was struck by a "frangible" bullet.

Regarding the name calling: Call me a "conspiracy nut" or a kook, I don't care which. I demand to know the Truth. You, on the other hand, demand everyone to sit down and be quiet because we already know the truth. Gee. How interesting. That's exactly what people demand of others in a totalitarian state.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
William Seger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-25-03 01:33 AM
Response to Reply #21
24. Over and over and over
One frame, taken out of context, proves nothing.

One frame? Out of context? For many frames before the shot, Kennedy's head is not moving; that's why I showed two frames before the shot, but there are many. Then, right at the shot, it snaps forward -- in fact, about as far forward as it can go, with his chin hitting his chest. How can you possibly call that "one frame, taken out of context?" Because your shot-from-the-front theory doesn't explain it? Well, that's not my problem.

The movement forward may be explained by the Secret Service driver slamming on the brakes, thinking the shots were coming from the front.

We've already been there, remember? That's why I put all those lines near the other passengers' heads. Nobody else is pitching forward.

From what eyewitnesses at the hospital saw of the limousine, there was a clean bullet hole in the front glass.

We've been there, too, and I posted the picture that proves that the windshield was only chipped from the inside and cracked; no "clean bullet hole" at all.

I demand to know the Truth.

Yeah? Well, you sure fooled me.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dbt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-25-03 06:21 AM
Response to Reply #24
25. What about the throat wound?
I refer to the wound that was obliterated by being widened by surgeons via tracheostomy, according to the account of a Parkland physician.

In the Zapruder film, Kennedy is clearly clutching at his throat, leaning forward, I submit, right after he took a round in the throat. And doesn't this occur after the limousine emerges from behind the street sign? Couldn't there have been time for him to pitch backward and then forward while the car was hidden from Zapruder's view?

There is so much about this event that still does not add up. Besides, if one believes the Single Assassin theory, one must also believe in the Pristine Magic Bullet.

:freak:
dbt

And who was this "Mr. B. of the CIA" that Oswald was supposedly trying to connect with in Mexico City?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Minstrel Boy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-25-03 07:58 AM
Response to Reply #25
26. It looks to me like
JFK reacts to taking a bullet in the back just before disappearing behind the freeway sign. Then, shortly after he reappears, he clutches his throat violently at a shot from the front.

The back wound had no point of exit. It was the conclusion of all three of the autopsy pathologists after extensive, prolonged probing, both with fingers and with a surgical probe. About half of the probing was done after the chest organs had been removed.

James Jenkins was one of the medical technicians at the autoposy:

"I remember looking inside the chest cavity and I could see the probe...through the pleura .... You could actually see where it was making an indentation...where it was pushing the skin up.... There was no entry into the chest cavity.... No way that that could have exited in the front because it was then low in the chest cavity."
http://ourworld.cs.com/mikegriffith1/id126.htm

And the throat wound was described as a "wound of entry" by several Parkland doctors, including the surgeon who performed the tracheotomy. In fact, when told the alleged sole assassin fired from the rear, he said that JFK must have turned his head to face the direction of the depository.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Octafish Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-25-03 09:15 AM
Response to Reply #24
27. So you believe Bush Jr. regarding 9-11?
It’s likely you must, since you believe the Warren Commission. Several major players, including W’s daddy, were involved in both events. Such trustworthy people, George de Mohrenschildt, George Herbert Walker Bush and Richard Milhous Nixon. Does the name “Reinhard Gehlen” ring any bells? David Atlee Phillips?

The Role of Richard Nixon and George Bush
in the Assassination of President Kennedy


By Paul Kangas
From "The Realist," Summer, 1991

A newly discovered FBI document reveals that, George Bush was directly involved in the 1963 murder of President John Kennedy. The document places Bush working with the now-famous CIA agent, Felix Rodriguez, recruiting right-wing Cuban exiles for the invasion of Cuba. It was Bush's CIA job to organize the Cuban community in Miami for the invasion. The Cubans were trained as marksmen by the CIA. Bush at that time lived in Texas. Hopping from Houston to Miami weekly, Bush spent 1960 and '61 recruiting Cubans in Miami for the invasion. That is how he met Felix Rodriguez.

You may remember Rodriguez as the Iran-contra CIA agent who received the first phone call telling the world the CIA plane flown by Gene Hasenfus had crashed in Nicaragua. As soon as Rodriguez heard that the plane crashed, he called his long-time CIA supervisor, who was now vice president, George Bush. Bush denied being in the contra loop, but investigators recently obtained copies of Oliver North's diary, which documents Bush's role as a CIA supervisor of the contra supply network.

In 1988, Bush told congress he knew nothing about ihe illegal supply flights until 1987, yet North 's diary shows Bush at the first planning meeting Aug. 6, 1985. Bush's 'official" log placed him somewhere else. Such double sets of logs are intended to hide Bush's real role in the CIA; to provide him with "plausible deniability." The problem is, it fell apart because too many people. Like North and Rodriguez, have kept records that show Bush's CIA role back to the 1961 invasion of Cuba (Source: The Washington Post, 7-10-90)

That is exactly how evidence was uncovered placing Georg(e) Bush working with Felix Rodriguez when JFK was killed. A memo from FBI head J. Edgar Hoover was found, stating that, "Mr. George Bush of the CIA" had been briefed on November 23rd, 1963 about the reaction of anti-Castro Cuban exiles in Miami to the assassination of President Kennedy. (Source: The Nation, 8-1388)

CONTINUED…

http://www.parascope.com/articles/1196/bush.htm

Here’s one memo referring to a “Mr. George Bush of the CIA”:



Here’s another memo referring to Mr. George H. W. Bush of Zapata Off-shore Drilling Company” forwarding some JFK assassination "hearsay":



Those interested in learning more about J Edgar Hoover and how he helped create Amerika:

http://www.fortunecity.com/westwood/vivienne/438/rants1...

Pretty far-out stuff, huh?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FlaGranny Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-25-03 10:10 AM
Response to Reply #27
29. The Bush family is the bane of the existence of
the United States as we thought we knew it. The more I learn about them and their associates, the more I realize they put the political shenanigans of past emperors and dictators to shame, and I fear for the entire world. Many kings, emperors,and dictators were relatively tame by comparison and were much more open about their ultimate goals.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Old and In the Way Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-26-03 08:00 PM
Response to Reply #27
79. Well, isn't that interesting................
Edited on Wed Nov-26-03 08:16 PM by Old and In the Way
"Bush stated that he was proceeding to Dallas, Texas, would remain in the Sheraton-Dallas Hotel and return to his residence on 11-23-63."

I often read posts here and on the 'net that GWHB couldn't remember where he was on 11/22...am I the only one that is surprised that he knew exactly where he was?

On edit-

No the document, dated 11/22 said he was in Tyler, Texas, but proceeding to Dallas. Even more interesting......establishes an apparent alibi as to where he was. Now if he called someone from the government on 11/22 to relay this information, why couldn't he remember where he was? How far is Tyler from Dallas?

Is there a link where Bush has publicly stated he didn't remember where he was?


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Media_Lies_Daily Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-26-03 08:31 PM
Response to Reply #27
83. I hadn't seen those before...I need to get back into the JFK research...
...community again. Wow.

Thanks, Octafish! My respect for your posting continues to grow with each post.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cronus Protagonist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-25-03 07:45 PM
Response to Reply #21
43. Did you really mean that?
Edited on Tue Nov-25-03 07:47 PM by Cronus
One frame, taken out of context, proves nothing. The movement forward may be explained by the Secret Service driver slamming on the brakes, thinking the shots were coming from the front.

You claimed that the forced spray of a high velocity bullet hitting someone's head could be made to go 180 degrees in the opposite direction and with the same force as if the bullet hit the head in the opposite direction, merely by the driver slamming the brakes on a car doing about 20 miles an hour or less.

I have to tell you, I'm trying to go along with you, but you're testing the limits of credulity with that claim.

Click Here To Find NO MICHAEL JACKSON Buttons, Stickers & Magnets
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FlaGranny Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-25-03 09:59 AM
Response to Reply #12
28. Doctors DO NOT mistake entrance and exit wounds,
trauma surgeons and brain surgeons absolutely do not confuse entrance and exit wounds. What happened to the entrance wound they described near JFK's temple, which should have been completely visible, and not in the hairline which might obscure it? In fact, the autopy photo of JFK's face shows only a wound in his neck. It doesn't even show the gaping head wound in the above drawings, which should be clearly visible on the autopsy photo as it was taken from the right side of JFK's head!!! The above-noted physicians also described the neck wound as an entrance wound, which was later obliterated by a tracheostomy.

Heaven forbid you ever need emergency room treatment by doctors stupid enough to make the errors ascribed to them. If they could be mistaken about such a thing as this they had no business being physicians in the first place. If any physicians read this thread, I'd appreciate a comment.

I am not a physician or nurse, but I've worked in the medical field for 40 years and I've never heard of such errors. If the "shot from behind" theory is true, physician's were either lying in their reports on the day of the assassination about what they observed or they were totally incompetent.

Also, regarding that Zapruder film (I would like to see the still frames from the time just before the first bullet hit)if you watch it in motion, when the first shot hit Kennedy in the neck, he brought his hands up and grasped the front of his neck and his head bent forward with his chin close to his chest, just as you would imagine would happen if the shot came from the front (grassy knoll). Imagine, for a second, your reaction upon being hit in the throat - that was exactly JFK's reaction. His head did not snap forward - his head was already forward - before the next bullet hit his head. His head goes backward WHEN the bullet hits his head. I believe the head shot came from the storm drain, which was in perfect alignment for the frontal shot to the head. There were three shooters.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Gloria Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-25-03 10:28 AM
Response to Reply #28
31. On Larry King, Nelly Connally confirmed that
Edited on Tue Nov-25-03 10:41 AM by Gloria
JFK's hands went up to his throat, like a reflex action, and his chin was on his chest. She said she looked into his eyes and saw "nothing".....
(Adamant that there were 3 or 4 shots....she defiantly challenged anyone who says otherwise, saying she was the one in the car, not them.)

She has published a book, "From Love Field...." (something like that). It's based on notes she wrote up right after the assasination. Not meant for publication, she wrote them as a record of the day for her grandchildren, I think still unborn, (she, like JFK and Connolly was in her 40's).

She put them away and found them in a file cabinet by accident over 30 years later. Thought they were good, so now they're published.

Should be interesting since they were written when the assassination was still fresh in her mind.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
William Seger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-25-03 09:37 PM
Response to Reply #28
58. If "Doctors DO NOT mistake entrance and exit wounds"...
... then they must ALL agree about Kennedy's throat wound, right? Ummm, sorry, so much for that theory.

If the throat wound is an entry wound, then Connally shot him with a magic disappearing bullet. The autopsy found three additional points of internal damage in a straight line between the back wound (which was most definitely an entry wound) and the throat wound. If it was from the back, then it was slanted downward -- oh, let's say more or less from where the gun was found. If it was from the front, then it had to come from inside the car, not the grassy knoll or the overpass. But the Parkland doctors didn't even know about the back wound, because they did not attempt any kind of forensic examination.

Some of the doctors thought that the throat wound was an entry wound based on only one fact: that is was small and fairly clean, whereas an exit wound is usually larger and messier than an entry wound, because the bullet's pressure wave will usually enlarge the exit hole. But the simple explanation for that small hole is because it exited right at the buttoned collar and tie knot, which contained the pressure-wave damage. The proof that is was an exit wound is that the fibers around the hole in the shirt were bent outward.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
teryang Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-25-03 09:50 PM
Response to Reply #58
60. Got any references for the last paragraph? n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
William Seger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-25-03 10:06 PM
Response to Reply #60
64. Sure...
From the Clay Shaw trial testimony (http://www.jfk-online.com/rfraziershaw2.html )

BY MR. DYMOND:
Q: Now, Mr. Frazier, did you have occasion to -- strike that, please -- in connection with your examination of the President's shirt, did you notice anything unusual about the front portion of the shirt?

A: Yes, there was a very short slit approximately one-half inch in length which was located in the button line and also in the button- hole line, that is where the buttonhole strip and button strip overlap at the front. This hole was located just below the collar button and had no other physical characteristics so that you could determine the nature of the object that caused it except that the object exited at that point, but I could not determine the nature of the object.

Q: What led you, as an expert, to believe that the object exited there?

A: From again the shape of the fibers being pressed from the inside of the shirt outward.


And:

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/factoid5.htm

http://www.geocities.com/verisimus101/sbt/lineofneckdam...

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
teryang Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-25-03 10:41 PM
Response to Reply #64
67. I'm going to call that the "slit theory"
A rifle bullet passes through the human body and on the way out leaves a small "slit" in the shirt material over what is proposed to be an exit wound.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Media_Lies_Daily Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-26-03 08:19 PM
Response to Reply #64
80. I'm going to be kind-hearted and just say that you should have...
...considered your source before posting anything by McAdams.

Try refuting this...

<http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph... >
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Media_Lies_Daily Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-26-03 06:41 PM
Response to Reply #58
77. Wrong again. You must enjoy that sensation...
...the slits in JFK's shirt and JFK's tie were caused by a scalpel when the shirt and tie were removed at Parkland by the emergency medical personnel under Dr. Carrico's supervision. Additionally, the slits in the shirt are below the neckband and do not overlap when the collar is buttoned. Since the slits DO NOT OVERLAP, THAT MEANS THERE ARE TWO HOLES IN THE FRONT OF THE SHIRT UNDER THE NECKBAND WHEN THE COLLAR IS BUTTONED. An exiting bullet would have left only one hole.

See the photos of JFK's shirt in FBI Exhibit 60 on pages 244-245 in Harold Weisberg's "Never Again". These photos were not printed in the WC Report because it failed to prove that the neck wound was an exit wound.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
William Seger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-27-03 01:50 AM
Response to Reply #77
86. "See the photos of JFK's shirt..."
Edited on Thu Nov-27-03 01:54 AM by William Seger
Seems kinda funny to me that someone who calls himself Media_Lies_Daily will believe absolutely any horseshit that the conspiracy hucksters come up with.

So, what you're saying is, the picture below looks to you like it "was caused by a scalpel when the shirt and tie were removed at Parkland by the emergency medical personnel" and "the slits DO NOT OVERLAP", and "it failed to prove that the neck wound was an exit wound?" Let me make sure I'm not misunderstanding you; that's what you're claiming? And you're daring me to refute that, right?

And, you must also be implying that the magic bullet that hit JFK from the front didn't make a hole in the shirt, made a hole in the skin below the Adams apple, and then disappeared? And you're daring me to refute that?

Words fail me...

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Media_Lies_Daily Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-27-03 02:23 AM
Response to Reply #86
88. Words fail you because you have no way to refute what I stated about...
...JFK's shirt.

The slits under the collarband and on both sides of the button do not match up when the collar is buttoned. Yes, I'm daring you to refute that.

And yes, Dr. Carrico stated that the slits in the shirt were caused by the scalpel used to cut off JFK's shirt and tie. I'm daring you to refute that also.

Additionally, Dr. Carrico stated that the wound of entry in the neck was ABOVE the collarband of JFK's shirt. Refute that, too, if you can.

You didn't know ANY of this, did you? How sad!

Speaking of believing "horseshit", anyone that blindly parrots McAdams' swill will believe anything, won't they? Based on your continued regurgitation of his commentary, I know for a fact that you can't refute that.

Looks like all you did in your post was repeat what I stated in my previous post. Okay, I've repeated them back yet again...how many more rounds do you intend to push this until you actually refute what I've presented?

You also appeared to have gotten rather agitated, but that's what normally happens when "Lone Nut" theorists get backed into a corner and run out of lame excuses.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
William Seger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-27-03 09:09 AM
Response to Reply #88
99. Oh, I get it now! You're a comedian...
... and you're trying to make "conspiracy nuts" look silly! Har, har, you got me!

Even with that picture right here, for everyone to see, you're saying that the holes look like they were made by a scalpel? From the outside?

Even with that picture right here, for everyone to see, you're saying that the holes wouldn't line up if the collar was buttoned?

In addition, you're saying that Dr. Carrico "stated" that he observered a nurse removing JFK's tie with a f-ing scalpel instead of a pair of scissors, and didn't attempt to stop her? And if the holes don't overlap, you're saying he must have stood there and watched her punch right through the shirt, not just once, but twice? Did he happen to "state" what happened to the nurse after that slightly embarrassing incident?

When Dr. Carrico testified to the WC, Mr. Dulles asked him about the throat wound, "Will you show us about where it was?" Dr. Carrico replied, "Just about where your tie would be." Was the doctor just making fun of the way Mr. Dulles was dressed that day, or do you take that as a "statement" by Dr. Carrico that he believes that ties are normally worn "ABOVE the collarband?" Or are you suggesting that Carrico's testimony proves those can't be the bullet holes in the photo, since those holes are obviously not "just about where your tie would be?"

And if Dr. Carrico "stated" that the wound was "ABOVE the collarband", did he happen to "state" why all the blood seems to be right about where the nurse punched the scalpel through the shirt, twice? With all the conspirators running around that day, there could be more to this throat wound story than we thought!

And you're saying that I'm the one who's "backed into a corner and run out of lame excuses?"

What a hoot! Okay, I'll admit that I was getting a little "agitated" by the astonishing gall that you have to say ludicrous stuff like this after calling me a liar, but now that I understand you're just trying to be funny... boy I do feel foolish! Good one, Media!

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TruthIsAll Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-27-03 01:49 PM
Response to Reply #99
100. OK, Seger. Look at the photo. Where is the wound?
I don't see anything. Do you? Even assuming there was an entrance wound in the back of the head, where is the exit wound? Look at other photos. There is no damage at all to JFK's face.

No visible wound in front. None in the back. Why not?

BTW, what happened to the camera they used? The photos can't be authenticated because...there is no camera. There is no brain, either.

The autopsy was a joke. Just like your contorted explanations.

You are obviously quite intelligent, but you are in real denial about this. What do you have invested to ignore all the evidence against the Magic Bullet Theory? Against the fact that there is no transcript of the Oswald interrogation? Against the clear head movement BACK in Zapruder video? Against the Parkland doctors who testified that there was a massive head wound of exit? Against the autopsy statements which corroborated them? Against the witnesses who ran to the grassy knoll? Against the acoustic evidence that at least 4 shots were fired? Against the testimony of Connally and his wife? Against the fact that nobody could duplicate the shots? Against all the mystery witness deaths at the time of the 1964 Warren Commission, 1969 Clay Shaw trial and 1978 HSCA investigations?


You can't, so you keep pushing your blurry still shots, quite creatively I must say, which signify nothing.

But you keep coming back for more. You don't quit.

Why must you insist on the Lone Nut Theory? What is your motive?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
burr Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-26-03 06:48 PM
Response to Reply #58
78. but I thought the final autopsy report said...
that the back wound was presumely of entrance, and the throat wound was one presumely of exit.

Doesn't this clear everything up? :shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Media_Lies_Daily Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-26-03 08:26 PM
Response to Reply #78
81. Absolutely! Just because they couldn't find an exit for the back wound...
...and the neck wound was one of entry, no problems, be happy!

Bring in that world-famous medical doctor, Arlen Specter, and he'll wrap it all up with the "Single-Bullet Theory" using the "Magic Bullet"!

Yeah...that's the ticket!

Oswald...in the corner window...with the Italian rifle...using the "Magic Bullet"...creating the "Single-Bullet Theory"!!

No loose ends there! That'll stand the test of time, for sure!

Yikes.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JustJoe Donating Member (535 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-26-03 08:34 PM
Response to Reply #81
84. One flabbergasting fact
that doesn't get much play:

On Saturday--the day AFTER the autopsy, Dr Humes, the head
autopsist, called Dr Perry at Parkland and asked Perry,
in Perry's words, "if we had made any wounds in the back."
So Humes was still trying to figure out not only where the bullet
went that struck the back, but IF it was even a bullet
that had made that shallow hole!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dflprincess Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-26-03 08:30 PM
Response to Reply #78
82. There were no forensic pathologists present
at Kennedy's autopsy. I put more faith in what the Dallas doctors said as they had more experience with gunshot wounds than the doctors that performed the autopsy.

The former Chief Pathologist for Hennepin County (Minneapolis & suburbs) whose name I cannot remember (John Coe?) was among the first allowed to view Kennedy's autopsy report. His opinion was that a person who freezes to death in a Minneapolis alley gets a better autopsy than JFK had.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
William Seger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-27-03 02:27 AM
Response to Reply #82
89. Did Media_Lies_Daily tell you that?
"No forensic pathologists present," huh? Please explain: Are you claiming that Dr. Finck wasn't really present, or that he's not really a forensic pathologist?

"Lt. Col. Pierre A. Finck, Chief of the Wound Ballistics Pathology Branch of the Armed Forces Institute of Pathology, who has had extensive experience with bullet wounds, illustrated the characteristics which led to his conclusions about the head wound by a chart prepared by him. This chart, based on Colonel Finck's studies of more than 400 cases, depicted the effect of a perforating missile wound on the human skull."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Merlin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-27-03 04:05 AM
Response to Reply #89
97. Fink had absolutely no say at the autopsy. He merely observed.
When he came into the room (he was brought in after the autopsy began and as an afterthought) he asked Boswell and Humes (the two autopsists) "Who is in charge?" From the audience, an Admiral replied "I am, Doctor." The autopsy took place in a medical theater, and was observed by about 40 military men. The admiral gave several orders during the autopsy instructing the doctors not to bother with certain areas of the body, such as the adrenals.

Fink later asked Boswell and Humes why they hadn't done things like cross-section the brain and the back wound path. They told him they thought if they weren't doing something right, he would tell them.

It is universally acknowledged to be one of the worst autopsies ever. It was conducted by two men who had never autopsied a gunshot wound victim. Even today, the famed Dr. Michael Baden, a pre-eminent forensic pathologist, decries it as a fiasco.

By the way, did anybody here attend the conference last week at the Cyril Wecht Institute at Duquesne Univ. last week? There were hundreds of lawyers and dozens of doctors there. Fascinating!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jsw_81 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-27-03 02:45 AM
Response to Reply #12
93. You're right
And not only does the Zapruder film clearly show evidence of a shot from the rear, but the Nix film does as well, especially the enhanced version. You can see the rear of Kennedy's head when he is shot and it is completely intact, not "blown out" or "destroyed" like the conspiracy nuts claim. The front of his head, however, explodes in a red mist (totally consistant with the Zapruder film). Sadly, these conspiracy believers are far more interested in emotion than evidence or logic. Believing in a conspiracy has become their religion, and it's unlikely that they'll ever change their mind.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Junkdrawer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-25-03 07:22 PM
Response to Reply #9
41. What is the chain of custody of the Zapruder film?
Is there anyway of knowing the film we see today is the same film Abe Zapruder shot in 1963?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cronus Protagonist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-25-03 08:32 PM
Response to Reply #41
47. Good question, (eom)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Octafish Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-25-03 12:59 AM
Response to Original message
22. Lt. Cmdr. James Pitzer, USN — HERO, murdered by the BFEE.
An officer of the United States Navy, Cmdr. Pitzer was one of the men charged with photographing the autopsy. He died from a gunshot wound in his office at Bethesda Naval Hospital a few weeks before his retirement.

In the History Channel, IIRC, a man testified when he was a Captain in the US Army participating in special-ops training in the 1960s, he was ordered by a CIA man to terminate a fellow officer. He declined the assignment and thought he'd never know what happened. In the 1990s, he saw a TV show that scrolled through a list of "suspicious deaths" and saw that of Cmdr. Pitzer. The man cried when related this story.

Here's some background:

Interpretations of New Evidence in the Pitzer Case

by Allan R.J. Eaglesham
April 1998

In an article published in the January 1998 edition of JFK/DPQ entitled The Untimely Death of Lt. Cmdr. William Pitzer, Robin Palmer and I presented a summary of recently released information that indicates that William Pitzer did not commit suicide, at odds with official rulings from investigations of his death by the FBI, the Naval Investigative Service, and an Informal Board of Investigation set up by the Commanding Officer of the Naval Medical School. Despite this copious new information, many questions remain, including the most fundamental: who pulled the trigger, and why? This article is an attempt to weave some of the loose ends into a plausible tapestry.

Pitzer's untimely passing (on 29 October 1966, at Bethesda Naval Hospital) is one of some forty that constitute the "mysterious deaths" of people directly or indirectly associated with the assassination of President Kennedy. In their book JFK; The Dead Witnesses (1995, Consolidated Press International, Tulsa, pp. 40-41), John Armstrong and Craig Roberts described Pitzer's demise as "one of the strangest cases of 'suicide' in the history of the Kennedy assassination." Pitzer is linked to the JFK assassination via Dennis David, a friend, naval colleague and protégé of Pitzer's, who maintains that he saw in his mentor's possession black and white photographs, color slides and, most significantly, movie film exposed during President Kennedy's autopsy, within a few days of the assassination. Therefore, if, as the recently released evidence suggests, William Pitzer did not commit suicide, then the truth was covered up by two naval investigations and by the FBI, with far-reaching implications.

A suspicious aspect of the case is that the Pitzer family was denied the autopsy report for more than two decades. When eventually it was released to them in the late 1980s, it revealed that, in conflict with what Mrs. Pitzer had been told by naval officials, there was no injury to the deceased's left hand; her request for her husband's wedding ring had been denied in those terms - she was told that his left hand was too badly injured to permit removal of that most precious item. Why would the Navy deny this request? There are two likely possibilities: they did not have the ring because it had been stolen, or it was damaged in a way that was inconsistent with the official ruling of suicide.

With assistance from lawyer James Lesar, President of the Assassination Archives and Research Center, author Harrison Livingstone obtained access to part of the Pitzer autopsy report that describes the bullet wound to the right temple; the absence of powder burns led Mr. Livingstone to theorize that the wound was not self-inflicted (High Treason 2, 1992, Carroll & Graf, New York, p. 558). On the other hand, a gun held tightly to the skin at discharge does not result in the "tattooing" that is characteristic of a close-range shot.

CONTINUED...

http://www.manuscriptservice.com/Article-2.html

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MadHound Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-25-03 10:14 AM
Response to Original message
30. Nice post Truth,
But you're probably wasting your time with the Warren Commission apologists. If you point out anomolies, like the NZ carrying the arrest of Oswald before he was aressted, they way it's irrelevant. If you point out the exit wound in back of Kennedy's head, as witnessed by forty plus qualified observers, they stick their fingers in their ears and go LALALALALA, I CAN'T HEAR YOU LALALALA. It is really disheartening we you run across a small minority of people who cannot face the truth.

I know, I've been trying to convince these people for two weeks.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
William Seger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-25-03 11:04 AM
Response to Original message
32. Well, let's see now...
Let's see if that forward head snap -- at the same time his head is exploding forward -- is gone yet:



NOPE! Dammit, still there!

Well, okay, let's see if that head wound has moved around to the back where it's supposed to be:



NOPE It's still on the top-right side -- where those idiot, lying autopsy doctors said it was, and right where the altered autopsy photos and x-rays showed it!

Come on, guys, you're not trying hard enough! Blow harder!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Octafish Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-25-03 12:47 PM
Response to Reply #32
33. What's a vertical red line prove?
It could be the President was continuing to lurch forward, clutching his throat?

Maybe the Secret Service driver hit the limo's breaks at that moment?

Perhaps the President was hit by two bullets, almost simultaneously?

How about taking in the evidence on the rest of the film that shows the hit and the violent movement to the left and back?

There are lots of reasons that can explain your vertical red line. You don't want to consider them, however. Your job is to instill doubt into the discussion.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
William Seger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-25-03 06:19 PM
Response to Reply #33
36. What does it prove?
Are you serious? I guess I have to wonder how you could ask a question like that and still expect to be taken seriously as some kind of "seeker of truth" about the assassination.

Let me spell it out for you, then: These images, along with all the physical evidence, indicate a shot from the rear. "Back and to the left" after these images does not prove a shot from the front, if the head kicked forward when it was hit. Get it?

It could be the President was continuing to lurch forward, clutching his throat?

Maybe the Secret Service driver hit the limo's breaks at that moment?


I've discussed that several times now, but apparently you don't believe me, yet you haven't done your own examination, either. Fine, here's a composite with 5 frames before the head shot, showing that neither Kennedy nor anyone else in the car is pitching forward before the head shot:



Perhaps the President was hit by two bullets, almost simultaneously?

Within the same 1/18th second frame? And the second bullet left no evidence whatsoever that the autopsy doctors could find? Anyway, does that mean that you are now acknowledging the obvious shot from the rear? That would be some progress, at least.

How about taking in the evidence on the rest of the film that shows the hit and the violent movement to the left and back?

Each and every time time that's been mentioned, I've given my opinion on that: a combination of the "compression/recoil" and "jet" effects. And anyway, that does not, in any way remove the need to explain what these images clearly show: How does a shot from the front cause Kennedy's head to kick forward at the same time his right temple is exploding forward?

There are lots of reasons that can explain your vertical red line. You don't want to consider them, however.

If you can claim that I "don't want to consider" your explanations, then I have to assume that you're not even reading what I've been saying, or you're just intellectually dishonest. You can claim that all you want, but the fact is, I've considered and refuted every reason you've offered, each and every time you've offered one. That you are unconvinced is neither surprising nor relevant; it doesn't entitle you to make a total bullshit, insulting statement like that.

Your job is to instill doubt into the discussion.

It really cracks me up how you "conspiracy nuts" keep claiming how important it is to know the truth about the assassination, and how you're the champions of truth, and how "Warren Commission apologists" are so obdurate and indifferent to truth, and then you demonstrate over and over again that all you really want to do is swap ghost stories.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Q Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-25-03 07:04 PM
Response to Reply #36
39. What is your medical background?
Edited on Tue Nov-25-03 07:06 PM by Q
- Have you studied or have a degree in anything that could lend credence to or support your claims of some special knowledge?

- You keep posting the same photos with the red lines over and over...without knowing the parameters of any other factors. How fast was the car moving? Was it pulling away or stopping? Was his wife pulling him in any way? You may think you know some of these things...but it's impossible to know every aspect unless you were there or talked to someone there.

- You're being obtuse...and you know it. One can't determine anything with the photos you've presented...beyond even more speculation. You seem to see something in the photos that 'prove' your own theories...while disregarding the decades of work by other investigators.

- What's your agenda? Calling others 'conspiracy nuts' is a tactic used by those trying to cover up crimes instead of looking at a body of evidence and coming to a logical conclusion.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
William Seger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-25-03 08:25 PM
Response to Reply #39
45. What's your background? What's your agenda?
We're talking about "critical thinking" and common sense here, not rocket science or politics.

But since it seems to be such a mystery to you, and since you asked: The first time I posted that image, it was simply to show that it's really the "shot from the grassy knoll" theory that defies physics -- not to mention the physical evidence. And I keep posting it to demonstrate yet another discovery I've made: how little the "conspiracy nuts" care about the physical evidence.

"You're being obtuse...and you know it."

Bullshit! Do you even know what the word means? I'm showing that nobody in the car was pitching forward before the head shot, and that only Kennedy pitches forward when he's shot. And I'm saying, repeatedly, that the fact that Kennedy's head clearly snaps forward at the very same instant that his right temple explodes forward is a damn good match for what the autopsy doctors found -- an entry wound in the back -- and you're calling me "obtuse"?!

I'm showing that the Zapruder film shows a head wound that clearly matches the autopsy description but looks nothing at all like that sketch that "TruthIsAll" (sic) prefers, and demonstrating that he has no explanation at all for that, and you're calling me "obtuse"?!

Well, thanks for your input. By the way, can you explain how a shot from the front caused that head-snap? It seems to me that it's the "conspiracy nuts" who could use some help with this "body of evidence and coming to a logical conclusion" stuff.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Q Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-25-03 10:09 PM
Response to Reply #45
65. Well, golly...guess I'll have to look up the word 'obtuse'...
- You seem to be basing your whole argument on what you perceive to be a forward movement. As to your autopsy argument...it's bogus as well.

- All the evidence points to a coverup of the original forensic findings. Having performed nearly 3000 autopsies myself...many of them on GSW victims...it appears that 'someone' attempted to conceal the exit wound and fabricate evidence. When you add to that the fact the brain was 'disappeared'...it has all the markings of a 'conspiracy' to hide the truth about the assassination.

- Head snap? Plain old gravity can cause a head to fall foward for a fraction of a second after impact.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
William Seger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-25-03 11:16 PM
Response to Reply #65
70. "Watch the film"
That's what I was told to do, to see the clear evidence that the autopsy doctors either got it wrong or just plain lied. So, I watch it. And right there, right at the head shot, before the "back and to the left" movement, it looks to me exactly like someone smacked him in the back of the head and it literally snapped forward. No sir, it does not look at all like "plain old gravity!" Considering that his chin was already almost on his chest, it looked pretty much like what I might expect from a shot from the rear -- especially with the cloud of stuff flying upward and forward.

So, I find some still images to see if that was just an optical illusion, maybe caused by all the flying stuff. Well, there it is; see for yourself. Go watch the film again, yourself. It's quick -- two frames, 1/9th second -- but it's certainly not invisible.

Then, I go looking around on the web, and I find that that head-snap is a well-known fact -- among the "WC apologists" at least. (One of the sites I found was where I got the idea to show vertically aligned pictures with the red lines. The first image I posted here was just a section from frame 312 pasted over frame 313, but the lines show it much better.)

"You seem to be basing your whole argument on what you perceive to be a forward movement."

Perhaps you aren't understanding that my "whole argument" in this case is that forward movement. Specifically, my "whole argument" in this case is that the head-snap indicates that it's the front-shot theory that defies physics, not the rear-shot theory.

"All the evidence points to a coverup of the original forensic findings."

Prove that, and you'll be a very famous man. Really.

I've changed my mind about the "conspiracy" no less than 4 times now since 1963. And you're presuming way too much if you think I'm arguing that there was no conspiracy. What I'm arguing is that the Zapruder film shows a shot from the rear, and no head wound on the back like the sketch TruthIsAll (sic) keeps posting. What I said about the autopsy results was that they agree with the Zapruder film, which contradicts your assertion that "all the evidence points to a coverup." This evidence certainly doesn't!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cronus Protagonist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-25-03 08:27 PM
Response to Reply #36
46. That last frame looks doctored.
And I do know a lot about doctoring images. All the other frames are moderately in focus, yet that one is way blurred. It's hard to doctor an image and keep it sharp. Only the best can do that and none can do it without detection, unless the image is blurry, of course, which is the only way to pass off a doctored image to an expert.

In the initial frames shows, the windshield of the car, the front passenger's head, the rear passenger and the fixtures on the car are, while blurred, no where near as blurred as the last frame.

Although I'm not a ballistics expert, I have made some shooting composits from actual dead bodies. IMHO, a high velocity bullet would not make a nebulous cloud like that on exit. It would make a spray significantly more conical with the largest majority of the mass from the target being expelled closest to the center of the exit wound.

Whether you agree with that or not, you cannot disagree that the force of a high velocity bullet would create a spray at significantly less than a 180 degree hemisphere from the point of exit outwards - the spray would be conical, not a hemisphere, in other words.

Yet there are clouds of orange "vapor" above Kennedy's head and closer to the alleged entry point than the alleged exit wound.

Additionally, the grass in the background of all the shots is inconsistent, considering the frames are supposed to be an uninterrupted series.

And even if the shots are uninterrupted, which I don't believe, the camera was panning, the car was moving and the people were also moving, yet every frame lines up perfectly. Surely, if these are all authentic, each frame would contain images that were slightly higher, lower, advanced or retarded with respect to

1/ the people, in relation to each other and the car
2/ and all objects in the image in relation to the edge of the frame,

I'll concede that last point if I ever see more frames of that movie and the above is what happens, but the blurrieness is just WAY too convenient and the cloud of vapor is WAY too nebulous to be real.

I say it's a fake, but what do I know?

Click Here To Find NO MICHAEL JACKSON Buttons, Stickers & Magnets
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
William Seger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-25-03 09:03 PM
Response to Reply #46
52. Links
These are the best images I've found on the web (but the head-snap is clear in every version I've found):
http://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm /

Here is a page with several links concerning the authenticity of the Zapruder film:
http://www.jfk-info.com/moot1.htm

It seems to me that hitting a skull fairly near the top is different from hitting a soft body. The shot would have created pressure throughout the skull, then a large chunk was removed suddenly. I'm not a ballistics expert either, but I think it would be a mistake for anyone to try to draw a definitive conclusion about that shot just from that bloody cloud. Still, most of it does go forward, not backward.

But that's not the only evidence. The limited point I've been trying to make is that the forward head-snap is extremely difficult to reconcile with a shot from the front, but it makes perfect sense if the shot was from the rear, which is what the autopsy found by actual, detailed examination of the skull. Since the Zapruder film was offered as "proof" that the autopsy doctors got it wrong, that head-snap is clearly a relevant issue.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Octafish Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-25-03 08:54 PM
Response to Reply #36
51. You're so wrong, it's funny.
Certainly, the possibility exists that the shot came from behind, striking the President in the back of the head and blowing out the opposite side of his head. That wouldn't make the President’s head move immediately and violently back and to the left, in the direction away from the front/right of the limousine, though. That is EXACTLY what one sees when viewing the sequence as a moving picture.

To be fair to you, which is infinitely more of a courtesy than you've extended anyone who disagrees with your position, suppose the shot did come from behind. The delay between that moment and the time the side of the President's head explodes should be MUCH LESS than 1/18th of a second, the time between Zapruder film frames. That event would occur, as measured by individual Zapruder film frames, immediately — vertical red lines or no.

One last thing: Your supercilious attitude would be laughable, if the subject matter wasn't so pertinent to the state of our nation and world today. Perhaps calling people "conspiracy nut" works to silence or control those who live under your roof, or basement, as the case may be. It won't work with me.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
William Seger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-25-03 09:22 PM
Response to Reply #51
54. Huh?
"To be fair to you, which is infinitely more of a courtesy than you've extended anyone who disagrees with your position, suppose the shot did come from behind. The delay between that moment and the time the side of the President's head explodes should be MUCH LESS than 1/18th of a second, the time between Zapruder film frames. That event would occur, as measured by individual Zapruder film frames, immediately — vertical red lines or no."

I'm going to assume that you are actually trying to address the issue now -- thank you very much -- but I have no idea what you are trying to say. If you can restate your arguement, I'd be more than happy to consider it and respond.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Octafish Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-25-03 09:36 PM
Response to Reply #54
57. A projectile travelling at 1,200 feet-per-second...
... travels 66.7 feet in 1/18th of a second.

As the diameter of the President's head was probably smaller than 12 inches, that means the bullet would have entered and passed through it in 1/120th of a second.

For the sake of fairness, allow for bone and other human tissue and fluids to slow the projectile down to half-speed, it still would be traveling at 600 feet-per-second, meaning a traverse time of 1/60 second.

That still wouldn't register between individual frames in the 18 frames-per-second Zapruder film. To denote such an event requires a high-speed camera, which is capable of exposure times as short as 1/1,000,000 second or a high-speed film camera, capable of recording thousands of frames per second.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
William Seger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-25-03 09:52 PM
Response to Reply #57
61. Okay... but do you have a point?
Actually, that round should have left the muzzle at upwards of 2000 fps, so it was doing maybe 1800 fps when it hit. Clearly, in Zapruder frame 313, the bullet is long gone.

So, what exactly is your point? I thought you were going to explain to me how a shot from the front would cause that forward head snap.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Octafish Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-25-03 10:03 PM
Response to Reply #61
63. Good luck in your future endeavors, Seger.
Edited on Tue Nov-25-03 10:05 PM by Octafish
The point was that Zapruder's camera wasn't capable of recording two events that occurred in 1/120th of a second at a speed of 18 frames per second.

The forward head snap may have occurred for several reasons that I've alluded to previously. The sudden and violent back and to the left movement most likely occurred because of a shot coming from somewhere in front of the limousine.

You obviously don't want to consider that hypothesis. To borrow an appropriate phrase, "That's your business."

So, you figure it out. Better yet, pay to have a forensic pathologist look over the Zapruder film with you and explain to you what he or she sees.

EDIT: Clarified first sentence.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wheresthemind Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-25-03 07:52 PM
Response to Reply #32
44. I must admit...
Edited on Tue Nov-25-03 07:53 PM by wheresthemind
you do a good job of making your case!

My question is with the way JFK was positioned, would that very small jerk have been comparable to getting shot in the back of the head? When we watch the film we cannot even see the jerk its so quick and small but of course we see the head go back and to the left with what appears to be amazing power and speed.

Also does anyone have links to any of the photos, X-rays, etc described by some of the posts here?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
number6 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-25-03 08:50 PM
Response to Reply #32
50. wow a bunch of blurry pictures
proves what, show the rest where head snaps backward...

come on show the whole sequence
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
William Seger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-25-03 09:30 PM
Response to Reply #50
56. Not necessary
It's easy to see even in the worst AVI versions that he fell back and left... after the forward snap I've shown. And I'm really getting tired of repeating the same stuff; please read the thread.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-26-03 08:42 PM
Response to Reply #56
85. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-27-03 02:45 AM
Response to Reply #85
92. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
number6 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-27-03 02:06 PM
Response to Reply #56
101. what forward snap, are u hallucinating ????
:crazy:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
9215 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-27-03 02:21 PM
Response to Reply #101
104. Oh, you mean you didnt' see it?
Funny, I didn't either.

Nice catch.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wheresthemind Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-25-03 09:50 PM
Response to Reply #32
59. clearer photo?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jsw_81 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-27-03 03:03 AM
Response to Reply #59
96. Well, that settles it
Unfortunately most of these conspiracy nuts will claim that the Zapruder film was doctored. Nevermind the fact that the Nix film shows the exact same thing. :eyes:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
9215 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-27-03 02:29 PM
Response to Reply #96
105. Which is nothing to support foreward head snap BS
It's a strawman argument, with blurry, probably doctored pictures.

you and Seger got nothin'. :eyes:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jsw_81 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-28-03 04:44 AM
Response to Reply #105
108. Nothing?
We have two films, Zapruder and Nix, showing the president's head snapping forward a split second after the fatal shot, indicating a shot from the rear. We also have photographic evidence of an exit wound in the right front of the president's head, more evidence of a shot from the rear.

We have several autopsy photos that support a shot from the rear.

We have numerous bullet fragments from the president and the governor traced back to Oswald's rifle, as well as a damaged bullet that was also traced to Oswald's rifle.

We have evidence that Oswald purchased the rifle.

We have Oswald's prints on the rifle.

We have photos of Oswald holding the rifle and testimony of the woman, his wife, who took said photos (this destroys any claim that the photos were "doctored" by conspirators).

We have testimony from a man who saw Oswald carry a package into the book depository on the morning of the assassination, a package that was later found empty near the sixth floor sniper's nest. Oswald said it contained "curtain rods" but no curtain rods were ever found. Oswald was obviously lying that morning. Why?

We have Oswald's prints on the boxes in the sixth floor sniper's nest.

We have the damning testimony of Oswald's co-workers (see post 95) who were on the fifth floor during the shooting and heard three shots come from above. They also heard what sounded like the the bolt action of a rifle, and three shell casings hitting the floor.

We have evidence of Oswald fleeing the area and killing a police officer shortly after the shooting in Dealey Plaza.

We have testimony from a Dallas Police officer that Oswald pulled a gun and yelled "This is it!" when confronted in the Texas theatre.

We have the testimony of dozens of witnesses who heard three shots from the book depository (compared to the paltry few who thought they heard shots and saw "smoke" coming from the knoll), including a few witnesses who actually *saw* a man who matched Oswald's height, build and complexion fire three shots at the presidential motorcade.

We have photograpic evidence showing several witnesses, including Secret Service agents, looking toward the book depository seconds after the shooting started.

We have evidence that Oswald checked out library books on assassinations and JFK only a few months before the shooting in Dallas.

We have evidence that Oswald was an excellent shot, trained by the U.S. Marine Corps to hit a target at over 200 yards (the president was less than 100 yards from the TSBD when hit).

We have evidence that Oswald left his wedding ring and a large amount of cash for his wife the morning of the assassination, something he had NEVER done before.

We have Oswald's own brother (who visited Lee in jail) telling news media that Lee was guilty as charged.

WE EVEN HAVE SOLID EVIDENCE THAT LEE OSWALD HAD TRIED TO ASSASSINATE ANOTHER PROMINENT POLITICAL FIGURE ONLY MONTHS BEFORE KENNEDY WAS KILLED!!!

Yet with all of this damning evidence (and there is even more evidence that I haven't presented) you clueless conspiracy nuts still cling to your ridiculous, unsubstantiated theories. It really boggles the mind.

I bet you people thought O.J. Simpson was innocent too, right? Maybe the same conspirators who "framed" him also killed President Kennedy! Hell, they might even be the same folks who are currently "framing" Michael Jackson! It's all a vast, vast conspiracy! :eyes:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
9215 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-28-03 10:03 AM
Response to Reply #108
110. Nice try at mistating what I said , or just plain lousy
Edited on Fri Nov-28-03 10:06 AM by 9215
reading comprehension?

What did I say "nothin" pertains too?


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TruthIsAll Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-29-03 12:05 AM
Response to Reply #108
112. Let me take your assertions one by one...
Edited on Sat Nov-29-03 12:12 AM by TruthIsAll
1. We have two films, Zapruder and Nix, showing the president's head snapping forward a split second after the fatal shot, indicating a shot from the rear. We also have photographic evidence of an exit wound in the right front of the president's head, more evidence of a shot from the rear.

- No. The Zapruder film clearly shows JFK falling back and to the left. As for the photograph, it appears to be touched up to me. The massive rear head wound depicted in the parkland doctor's initial drawing and confirmed by all the other doctor's and nurses is the best evidence. There was no motive to fabricate the drawing. Oswald was not even a suspect yet.

2.We have several autopsy photos that support a shot from the rear.

- No. We have one entry wound in the back (no exit), six inches below the collar. We have an entry wound in the throat. We have an entry wound in the right temple. We have the curb markings aof the Teague shot which missed. And we have the Connally wounds. At least five (5) shots.

3. We have numerous bullet fragments from the president and the governor traced back to Oswald's rifle, as well as a damaged bullet that was also traced to Oswald's rifle.

-Quite the contrary.
http://www.ratical.org/ratville/JFK/PG/PGchp3.html
"Yet, there is nothing in this evidence itself to prove either that Oswald's rifle was used in the shooting or, if it was, that Oswald fired it. The whole fault in the Commission's case relating the Mannlicher-Carcano rifle to the shooting is this: bullets identifiable with that rifle were found outside of the victims' bodies. Pieces of metal not traceable to any rifle were found inside the bodies. The Report merely assumes the legitimacy of the specimens found externally and works on the assumption that these bullets and fragments had once been inside the bodies, and thus were involved in the shooting"

4.We have evidence that Oswald purchased the rifle.

-We do? Alex Hidell? And whose handwriting?
http://www.ratical.org/ratville/JFK/PG/PGchp3.html

WC defenders note that the order form, money order, and envelope used to purchase the Mannlicher-Carcano were filled out in handwriting identified as Oswald's (see, for example, Moore 48). Furthermore, they point to Oswald's alleged use of the alias "Alek Hidell." The rifle was sent to Oswald's post office box, but it was ordered in the name of, and addressed to, "A. Hidell." According to the Dallas police, Oswald was carrying an "Alek J. Hidell" ID card when he was arrested. Here's where things get interesting.

To begin with, Oswald was at work when he is said to have purchased the money order (Summers 213). So who bought the money order? If Oswald didn't buy it, why does the handwriting on it seem to be his? There are forgers who can copy a person's handwriting so well that it is difficult if not impossible to detect their fakery, especially if only a small quantity of writing is required. Also, the original order form and envelope were destroyed, so the FBI had to rely on microfilm copies of this evidence.

Another problem with the connection between Oswald and the Carcano is that nobody at Oswald's post office reported giving him a hefty package such as the kind in which a rifle would be shipped (Summers 59; Meagher 50). In fact, none of those postal workers reported ever giving Oswald ANY kind of a package. Oddly, the FBI apparently made no effort to establish that Oswald picked up the rifle from the post office, or that he had ever received a package of any kind there. Furthermore, postal regulations required that only those persons named on the post office box's registration form could receive items of mail from the box, yet there is no evidence that Oswald listed the name of Hidell on the form (Smith 290-291). In fact, in a report dated 3 June 1964, the FBI stated, "Our investigation has revealed that Oswald did NOT indicate on his application that others, including an 'A. Hidell,' would receive mail through the box in question" (Meagher 49, emphasis added).

There is a discrepancy in size between the weapon ordered by "A. Hidell" and the rifle that Oswald allegedly left behind on the sixth floor of the TSBD. "A. Hidell" ordered item C20-T750 from an advertisement placed by Klein's Sporting Goods in the February 1963 issue of AMERICAN RIFLEMAN. The rifle that was listed as item C20-T750 is 36 inches long. However, the Mannlicher-Carcano that Oswald supposedly abandoned on the sixth floor of the Book Depository Building is 40.2 inches long (Lifton 20).

http://karws.gso.uri.edu/JFK/the_critics/griffith/Probl...

Most conspiracy theorists see the mail-order murder weapon and the "Hidell" ID card as evidence of a frame-up. They note the sheer stupidity of it all. In the Texas of 1963 Oswald could have bought a rifle across the counter with few if any questions asked. He could have done so and risked only a future debatable identification by some gun shop worker. Instead, we are told, Oswald ordered the murder weapon by using the alias "A. Hidell," gave his own post office box number, committed his handwriting to paper, and then went out to assassinate the President of the United States with this same "Hidell"-purchased rifle and while carrying a "Hidell" ID card in his wallet!

Many WC critics doubt that Oswald was carrying the "Hidell" ID card at the time of his arrest. They point to the fact that the Dallas police said nothing about the fake ID card until the FBI later announced that the alleged murder weapon had been ordered by an "A. Hidell." Critics also note that neither the phony identification nor the use of an alias is mentioned in the transcripts of the radio traffic between the arresting officers and the police station (Groden and Livingstone 183-184; Lane 133-136). One of the officers who brought Oswald to the police station, Paul Bentley, said he established Oswald's identify by going through his belongings, and there was no suggestion that Bentley had to decide whether his suspect was named Oswald or Hidell. Said Bentley, "On the way to City Hall I removed the suspect's wallet and obtained his name" (Groden and Livingstone 184). Additionally, not one of the arresting officers mentioned finding or seeing the Hidell ID card in their reports to the police chief two weeks after the assassination (Meagher 186). (A further twist comes from the fact that former FBI agent James Hosty, who worked out of the Dallas FBI office at the time of the assassination, claims in a recent book that Oswald's wallet was actually found at the J. D. Tippit murder scene!)


5.We have Oswald's prints on the rifle.


-The question is: who put the prints on them? And when?
http://karws.gso.uri.edu/JFK/the_critics/griffith/Probl...

If Oswald did order the rifle and maintain possession of it for a while, he could have been instructed to do so by those who were framing him to be the patsy for the assassination. If nothing else, the plotters could have arranged for Oswald to handle the rifle before the shooting, in order to get some of his prints on the weapon. The Dallas police found some partial fingerprints on the Carcano's magazine housing (a part of the trigger guard). The FBI studied these prints the day after the assassination and determined that they were worthless for identification purposes. However, in recent years two independent fingerprint experts examined photographs of the prints and concluded they were Oswald's. What is odd about these prints is that they were located on a part of the rifle that would NOT have been handled while it was being fired. Some researchers are understandably skeptical of the recent identification of the partial prints as Oswald's. But, if the prints are his, then I would suggest they were made as a result of Oswald being manipulated into handling the rifle shortly before the shooting.

Are the partial prints Oswald's? Fingerprint experts Jerry Powdrill and Vincent J. Scalice examined photos of the prints in 1993 and concluded they were Oswald's. Many conspiracy theorists are skeptical of this identification and point out that the prints were studied carefully in 1963 by the FBI's Sebastian Latona, a highly skilled and experienced fingerprint expert, and found to be worthless. WC defenders reply that Latona didn't have access to the same photos of the prints that Powdrill and Scalice were able to use. However, not only was Latona able to study the original prints themselves, but he had additional pictures taken of them for examination purposes. Latona's WC testimony leads many researchers to doubt the validity of Powdrill's and Scalice's identification.


6.We have photos of Oswald holding the rifle and testimony of the woman, his wife, who took said photos (this destroys any claim that the photos were "doctored" by conspirators).

-Controversial, to say the least.
http://karws.gso.uri.edu/JFK/the_critics/griffith/Probl...

According to the WC and the HSCA, all of the backyard snapshots were taken with a cheap, hand-held camera, known as the Imperial Reflex camera.

When the backyard photos were examined by Major John Pickard, a former commander of the photographic department of the Canadian Defense Department, he declared them to be fakes. Retired Detective Superintendent Malcolm Thompson, a past president of the Institute of Incorporated Photographers in England, analyzed the pictures and came to the same conclusion. (When the HSCA's photographic panel concluded that the backyard photos were authentic, Thompson deferred to the panel on most of the issues concerning the genuineness of the pictures. However, Thompson said he remained troubled by the chin on Oswald in the photos, which is different from his chin in other pictures.)

There are indications of fraud in the backyard photos that are obvious even to the layman. For example, the shadow of Oswald's nose falls in one direction while the shadow of his body falls in another direction. And, the shadow under Oswald's nose remains the same in all three photos even when his head is tilted. The HSCA's photographic panel could offer only an unrealistic reenactment based on highly improbable assumptions to explain the problematic nose shadow. In the end, the panel ended up appealing to a vanishing point analysis to explain all of the variant shadows in the backyard photos. I discussed this matter with a number of professional photographers, and none of them took the position that a vanishing point analysis would explain the kinds of conflicting shadows seen in the backyard pictures.

Another indication of fakery in the photos is the fact that the HSCA's photographic panel could find only minute ("very small") differences in the distances between objects in the backgrounds. This virtual sameness of backgrounds is a virtual impossibility given the manner in which the pictures were supposedly taken. In order to achieve this effect, Marina would have had to hold the camera in almost the exact same position, to within a tiny fraction of an inch each time, for each of the three photos, an extremely unlikely scenario, particularly in light of the fact that Oswald allegedly took the camera from her in between pictures to advance the film.


7.We have testimony from a man who saw Oswald carry a package into the book depository on the morning of the assassination, a package that was later found empty near the sixth floor sniper's nest. Oswald said it contained "curtain rods" but no curtain rods were ever found. Oswald was obviously lying that morning. Why?

- Not so obvious.
Sprague, Richard E.
The Framing of Lee Harvey Oswald
Computers and Automation / October 1973

For the tenth anniversary of assassination, Sprague contributed this ambitious 15-page article that examined some of the photo-evidence against Oswald. Features several photos at the time not generally available, including full-page reproduction of James Murray Depository photo used in Six Seconds in Dallas. Publishes Hughes frame and Dillard photos as proof that no shots fired from Oswald window, observing later photos showed window bottom raised to height necessary to afford sniper view. Gene Daniels photo of landlady putting up curtains lends credence to Oswald’s story of bringing curtain rods to work. Presents work by Fred Newcomb on the Backyard Photos; and charges Marina with lying about her participation. Contends Howard Brennan never looks up during the Zapruder film. Implicates Marina, the Paines and deMohrenshildts, and Dallas Police. Even Oswald’s landlord and landlady are drawn in, as is Oswald co-worker Buell Wesley Frazier whom Sprague mentions was a crack shot who “disappeared for several.hours.after.the.assassination.


8. We have Oswald's prints on the boxes in the sixth floor sniper's nest.

-Sure, he worked there, didn't he? But how come no prints were found for any of his co-workers? They handled the boxes also.

9.We have the damning testimony of Oswald's co-workers (see post 95) who were on the fifth floor during the shooting and heard three shots come from above. They also heard what sounded like the the bolt action of a rifle, and three shell casings hitting the floor.

-They heard shots. So what? The question is: who did the firing?

10.We have evidence of Oswald fleeing the area and killing a police officer shortly after the shooting in Dealey Plaza.

-There is no evidence that he fled. He took a bus. And there is no evidence that he killed Tippet.

11.We have testimony from a Dallas Police officer that Oswald pulled a gun and yelled "This is it!" when confronted in the Texas theatre.

-He may have. By this time, he knew he had been set up.

12.We have the testimony of dozens of witnesses who heard three shots from the book depository (compared to the paltry few who thought they heard shots and saw "smoke" coming from the knoll), including a few witnesses who actually *saw* a man who matched Oswald's height, build and complexion fire three shots at the presidential motorcade.

-Many heard (and some saw) shots coming from the grassy knoll. Did you see "The Men Who Killed Kennedy" on the History Channel.? If not, it will soon be out on DVD. There is an eyewitness who claims to have seen two men (one shooting) from behind the grassy knoll fence. There is just a single eyewitness who claims to have seen someone looking like Oswald on the 6th floor. And he had faulty vision.

13.We have photograpic evidence showing several witnesses, including Secret Service agents, looking toward the book depository seconds after the shooting started.

-That could have been anyone firing, right? Just because they looked up, does not mean they saw LHO.

14.We have evidence that Oswald checked out library books on assassinations and JFK only a few months before the shooting in Dallas.

-Where is the evidence?

15.We have evidence that Oswald was an excellent shot, trained by the U.S. Marine Corps to hit a target at over 200 yards (the president was less than 100 yards from the TSBD when hit).

-He was? He had maggies drawers.
http://karws.gso.uri.edu/JFK/the_critics/griffith/Probl...

If anything, the evidence indicates Oswald had very little time for target practice in the weeks preceding President Kennedy's death. Oswald's landlady reported that in the forty days preceding the assassination Oswald usually watched TV or read after he came home from work. On the weekends, he almost always visited his wife and children. When and where did Oswald have the chance to practice firing at a moving target from sixty feet up and from an average of two hundred feet away?

And Oswald would have needed lots of practice. He was at best an average shot. One of his Marine Corps buddies, Nelson Delgado, reported that Oswald had trouble meeting the minimum Marine marksmanship standards, and that he was such a poor shot that he often missed the target completely. In 1977 former Rockefeller Foundation fellow Henry Hurt interviewed over fifty of Oswald's Marine colleagues. Apparently, not one of them described the alleged assassin as an excellent shot, and nearly all of them agreed with Delgado's testimony that Oswald was a poor marksman (Hurt 99-100).
Some WC defenders point to the CBS television network's reenactment of the assassination as proof that Oswald could have shot Kennedy. The CBS rifle test was reported in the 1975 documentary THE AMERICAN ASSASSINS and was presented as evidence of the WC's findings regarding the shooting. However, CBS's reenactment failed to establish that Oswald could have done what the WC said he did.

The CBS test was not a realistic simulation of the shooting feat attributed to Oswald. CBS used eleven expert riflemen, but Oswald was an average marksman at best. Also, the CBS test assumed the correctness of the single-bullet theory. Therefore, the shooters were not required to load and fire their second shot, or any shot, in approximately one second. They should have been asked to do so since numerous witnesses from all over Dealey Plaza said two of the shots came so closely together that they were nearly simultaneous (see, for example, Menninger 249, 253, 278, 298, and Brown 92-93, 99, 115). Some of these witnesses said the two shots were so close together that they almost sounded like a single burst of two bullets from an automatic weapon. No gunman, no matter how skilled, could have fired the Carcano with that kind of speed, and, obviously, the CBS shooters were not required to do so.

It should also be kept in mind that the CBS reenactment did not take into account such matters as the cramped conditions in which Oswald would have had to fire, and the fact that in the forty days preceding the assassination Oswald had few if any chances to target practice. The riflemen in the CBS test did not use the supposed murder weapon itself. They used a Carcano, but not the one Oswald allegedly used. Additionally, not one of the expert CBS shooters managed to score at least two hits out of three shots in less than six seconds on his first attempt, yet Oswald would have had only one attempt. Seven of the CBS riflemen failed to score two hits on ANY of their attempts.


16.We have evidence that Oswald left his wedding ring and a large amount of cash for his wife the morning of the assassination, something he had NEVER done before.

-Yes, one hundred seventy dollars. Why should he carry so much money. DTo buy a few cokes? Many men leave their wedding ring at home. What does this prove? That he expected to be caught? It's a reach. No evidence of anything.

17.We have Oswald's own brother (who visited Lee in jail) telling news media that Lee was guilty as charged.

-How would he know? Did Lee confess to him?

18.WE EVEN HAVE SOLID EVIDENCE THAT LEE OSWALD HAD TRIED TO ASSASSINATE ANOTHER PROMINENT POLITICAL FIGURE ONLY MONTHS BEFORE KENNEDY WAS KILLED!!!

-So Oswald, a left-wing nut-job, shot at Walker, a right-wing nut-job who hated JFK and Bobby. Why then would Oswald, a Marxist and Castro sympathizer, shoot JFK, a liberal who was seeking peace with Kruschev? You can't have it both ways.

19. Yet with all of this damning evidence (and there is even more evidence that I haven't presented) you clueless conspiracy nuts still cling to your ridiculous, unsubstantiated theories. It really boggles the mind.

-No, friend, you boggle the mind. Because you only consider the fabrications and misrepresentations put forth by the Warren Commission (primarily the totally discredited Magic Bullet Theory, but much else. You have lots of reading to do.

20. I bet you people thought O.J. Simpson was innocent too, right? Maybe the same conspirators who "framed" him also killed President Kennedy! Hell, they might even be the same folks who are currently "framing" Michael Jackson! It's all a vast, vast conspiracy!

-I happen to believe O.J. was guilty as sin. Because the evidence (blood) was overwhelming. So there. As for Michael Jackson, I don't give a damn one way or the other. And I have no interest in the case. So, not knowing the facts, I will not venture an opinion.

Finally, to you, sir, the JFK murder and all the facts pointing to conspiracy are all an improbable vast, vast coincidence!!!






Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SmileyBoy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-25-03 07:10 PM
Response to Original message
40. Whenever I see the Zapruder film, the first thing I notice is:
That Kennedy's head went BACK AND TO THE LEFT. I don't need ANYBODY to try to convince me that the third shot was from the back if his head fell back and to the left on the third shot. You're wasting your time.

I can be convinced that the first and second shots could've come from the book depository. I'm in the camp that believes that Oswald was one of the shooters, but not the only one. I think he was an important part of a conspiracy, but the one who was chosen to take the fall for it so others wouldn't have to. I think Jack Ruby was also part of it too.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
peacetalksforall Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-25-03 08:41 PM
Response to Reply #40
48. I was able to go to Dallas and cannot get out of my mind the
Edited on Tue Nov-25-03 08:43 PM by higher class
reality of the angle as the limo approached the curve versus the angle of the shot after the limo had turned. It was perfect to shoot him straight down. Much easier. If you're going to put that gun in the window and not think you're going to be seen, you could do it straight down as well.

And if Oswald had acted alone and thought he could act alone, he would have been the most stupidest man in the world to think he could walk and ride buses home and out of the city. Absolutely stupid.

I think his Soviet double was waiting in the wings while the Frenchman shot the gun after they got Oswald to finger it a few days earlier. The double went to the house, shot the cop, walked in the theatre. Oswald and the double were switched.

The mafia frenchman shot the stupid gun and the government shot the better guns from the knoll, the bridge, and/or the sewer.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jsw_81 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-27-03 07:42 AM
Response to Reply #48
98. What a brilliant analysis

I think his Soviet double was waiting in the wings while the Frenchman shot the gun after they got Oswald to finger it a few days earlier. The double went to the house, shot the cop, walked in the theatre. Oswald and the double were switched.

The mafia frenchman shot the stupid gun and the government shot the better guns from the knoll, the bridge, and/or the sewer.


So let me get this straight...the Mafia AND the U.S. government AND the Soviets killed Kennedy? You conspiracy nuts crack me up!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BigBigBear Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-25-03 08:45 PM
Response to Original message
49. Someone look up
Bobby Hargis' testimony.

He was a motorcycle cop behind the motorcade. When Kennedy took the headshot, it sprayed Hargis all over his face - including landing a piece of brain on his upper lip. He thought HE had been hit.

Someone please tell me how a piece of brain ejected from a shot from the rear flys backwards onto a motorcycle cop's face?

Jackie testified she climbed onto the back of the limousine to retrieve a piece of skull.

How exactly did a piece of skull fly backward toward the shooter?

Two dozen ER docs and nurses, all trained in trauma, all got it wrong and identically wrong?

Sure.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
William Seger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-25-03 09:27 PM
Response to Reply #49
55. Um....
Well, two points: One, stuff went everywhere; it's just that, according to the Zapruder film, most of it clearly went forward.

And two, he was moving forward, wasn't he?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BigBigBear Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-25-03 11:19 PM
Response to Reply #55
71. Kennedy?
Kennedy was moving very slowly at the time of the headshot - some people believe that Greer inadvertanly gave the assasin(s) the best shot by slowing down. I've seen 6mph as an estimated speed at the time of the headshot.

Hargis was also behind the limo on the passenger side. At a minimum, the material he found himself covered in would have had to have been suspended several seconds for him to have driven "through" it.

Anyway - here's a lengthy treatise on the the headshot splatter, if you're so inclined. You sound like someone who's made their mind up, though.

I guess I do too.

http://www.zimmermanjfk.com/frontmenu_000016.htm
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
9215 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-26-03 09:54 AM
Response to Reply #71
72. Here is where a reconstruction of
the scene and reinactment of events could be useful.

Gutierrez's analysis boils down to showing that the blood matter that hit Hargis and the following limousine could not have come from "back splatter". That is essentially her argument. She accounts for the forward motion of the car and other variables effecting the blood splatter analysis such as the wind or angle of trajectory.

Her conclusions could be verified with a reconstruction.

Thanks for the link

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
number6 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-27-03 02:09 PM
Response to Reply #55
102. make some more excuses
"according to the Zapruder film, most of it clearly went forward."

whaa ...?? did u gather it up and weigh it?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
teryang Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-25-03 09:21 PM
Response to Original message
53. Good post
Edited on Tue Nov-25-03 09:31 PM by teryang
The command "autopsy" photographs were altered. They're fakes. The so called autopsy wasn't even performed by forensic examiners. They didn't even conduct a proper autopsy because so many government officials were interfering with the examination.

LCDR Pitzer, the custodian of the original films was tortured and murdered in 1966.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RUMMYisFROSTED Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-25-03 10:32 PM
Response to Original message
66. Yep.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jsw_81 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-27-03 02:56 AM
Response to Original message
95. The fatal shot
Here are two frames from the Zapruder film that clearly show pieces of the president's head flying forward a split second after the fatal shot (Note the massive damage to the front of the president's head, clear evidence of an exit wound):



How can this be if he was hit from the front? When you combine this evidence with evidence of the two-inch forward snap that others have presented, it becomes rather obvious that Kennedy was hit from the rear. Not to mention the fact that the bullet fragments found in Kennedy's head were traced back to Oswald's rifle.

And furthermore, why haven't the conspiracy supporters addressed the testimony of James Jarman and Harold Norman that I presented on the other JFK thread this morning?

On the day of the shooting, two of Oswald's Book Depository co-workers, Jarman and Norman, were looking out the building's fifth-floor windows (directly under Oswald's "sniper's nest") to get a good view of the president's car. As Kennedy passed below, they heard a gunshot directly above them, followed by what sounded like a shell casing hitting the floor only a few feet above their heads. They even heard what sounded like the bolt action of a rifle. This was followed by two more shots and two more casings hitting the floor. Think about that for a moment. These men heard three shots. Not four or five or seven or ten like the conspiracy believers claim, only three. And they were directly below the window where several witnesses on the ground saw a man who matched Lee Oswald's height and complexion fire three shots at the motorcade. And both Jarman and Norman were African-American, and huge supporters of President Kennedy. Why would they lie? Were they in on the conspiracy?



Here they are, moments after the assassination.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
number6 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-27-03 02:12 PM
Response to Reply #95
103. clearly ???? I don't think so ...
pretty blurry picture
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
9215 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-27-03 02:44 PM
Response to Reply #95
107. Jeez, you are reaching here
Edited on Thu Nov-27-03 02:47 PM by 9215
Even if those pieces are from his head they are not flying "forward" as you suggest. Take a couple of straight edges and do a perpendicular (horizontal--vertical) angle from the top of Kennedy's head. Those flying fragments are, at best equidistance between the vertical and horizontal axises which would be, at best a "side" movement.

In addition the potential front shot shooter was not directly in front of Kennedy. If he shot out of the sewer drain he was slighty to the right of Kennedy when facing. If it was the Grassy Knoll that makes it even further to the right. From these angles of origin you must rotate the axis in a clockwise motion and when you do it puts these fragments in a rearward-side motion, not a forward motion.

You keep calling the skeptics of the official word on the JFK assasination conspiracy nuts. Well, you sound like an "anti-conspiracy" nut.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
9215 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-28-03 10:08 AM
Response to Reply #107
111. Well, what do have to say?
zzzzzzzzzzzzz :boring: zzzzzzzzzzzz
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TruthIsAll Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-27-03 02:40 PM
Response to Original message
106. (W)hen (I)nvalid (L)ogic (L)etting (I)ncredible (A)rguments (M)ake
Edited on Thu Nov-27-03 02:44 PM by TruthIsAll
(S)uspect (E)xplanations(G)ain (E)rsatz (R)espectibility

That's William Seger in his tortured denial.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jsw_81 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-28-03 04:45 AM
Response to Reply #106
109. Denial
Read post 108 and then tell me who's in denial here, kay?
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 Apr 23rd 2014, 03:22 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) 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