Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

JFK Assasination

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by dgfred View Post
    Where are you 'seeing' 5 shots in the Zapruder film?
    Good question Greg. Ok. There is one that we know missed and is admitted in the Warren report so there is that one, that ricocheted off a kerb stone with bits hitting a bystander. Now that would leave only two shots left to do the rest of the damage including the fatal head shot according to the Warren report. Now as you watch JFK come from behind the street sign he is holding his throat, that's two. Now bear in mind also that multiple medical staff (very experienced in gunshot trauma)talked about a wound in the adams apple as a point of entry when he was examined in Parkland Hospital. The wound was then obscured by a tracheotomy. Now this is the bullet (the magic bullet) that is supposed to have hit Kennedy in the back and then come out of his throat and hit Governor Connelly. However when JFK is holding his throat as he emerges from behind the sign. Connelly is not hit and by his own statement he heard shots first and turned round to see JFK in pain before he was hit. It is a second or so later that you then see Connelly react in anguish at being hit. That is the third indication on the film that a bullet has struck ( I'm including the miss which you obviously you cant see but you know what I mean) Now that leaves two shots. Kennedy was certainly hit in the back as the Parkland staff said so and probed the wound. This wound was 6 inches below his neck and to the right towards his shoulder blade area. The claim was that the bullet entered the back , came out of his neck and hit Connelly but the point of entry in the back and then the point of exit at the neck is impossible as the trajectory is all wrong, especially as the neck wound was identified by medical as a entry wound. So here we have 1. A miss. 2. The shot that makes JFK hold his neck. 3. The shot that hits JFK in the back too low for it to the the same bullet that caused a hole in his neck, nor a point of exit either which would've been out of his chest. 4. The bullet that hits Connelly, independently by the look of it. 5. The fatal head shot.

    Remember the Warren Commission claimed only 3 shots fired in total including a miss. So excluding the head shot when you watch the Zapruder film(and do so carefully multiple times) one bullet is claimed does all the rest. The gap between JFK holding his throat and Connelly reacting in pain is a noticeable gap but they were saying this is the same bullet travelling at high speed and we don't know how long JFK spent behind the street sign with that wound either. When we first see him he is hit so he was hit slightly earlier than that. Any more than 3 shots and the Warren Commission has two shooters or more on its hands and at the very least there is 4 there and really looking at the medical evidence from very credible witnesses, there's 5.

    So to quickly recap. 1. Miss 2. JFK's throat. 3. JFK's back 4. Connelly's wound. 5. Head shot.
    Last edited by copenhagen; 23 Dec 13, 14:07.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by copenhagen View Post
      Good question Greg. Ok. There is one that we know missed and is admitted in the Warren report so there is that one, that ricocheted off a kerb stone with bits hitting a bystander. Now that would leave only two shots left to do the rest of the damage including the fatal head shot according to the Warren report. Now as you watch JFK come from behind the street sign he is holding his throat, that's two. Now bear in mind also that multiple medical staff (very experienced in gunshot trauma)talked about a wound in the adams apple as a point of entry when he was examined in Parkland Hospital. The wound was then obscured by a tracheotomy. Now this is the bullet (the magic bullet) that is supposed to have hit Kennedy in the back and then come out of his throat and hit Governor Connelly. However when JFK is holding his throat as he emerges from behind the sign. Connelly is not hit and by his own statement he heard shots first and turned round to see JFK in pain before he was hit. It is a second or so later that you then see Connelly react in anguish at being hit. That is the third indication on the film that a bullet has struck ( I'm including the miss which you obviously you cant see but you know what I mean) Now that leaves two shots. Kennedy was certainly hit in the back as the Parkland staff said so and probed the wound. This wound was 6 inches below his neck and to the right towards his shoulder blade area. The claim was that the bullet entered the back , came out of his neck and hit Connelly but the point of entry in the back and then the point of exit at the neck is impossible as the trajectory is all wrong, especially as the neck wound was identified by medical as a entry wound. So here we have 1. A miss. 2. The shot that makes JFK hold his neck. 3. The shot that hits JFK in the back too low for it to the the same bullet that caused a hole in his neck, nor a point of exit either which would've been out of his chest. 4. The bullet that hits Connelly, independently by the look of it. 5. The fatal head shot.

      Remember the Warren Commission claimed only 3 shots fired in total including a miss. So excluding the head shot when you watch the Zapruder film(and do so carefully multiple times) one bullet is claimed does all the rest. The gap between JFK holding his throat and Connelly reacting in pain is a noticeable gap but they were saying this is the same bullet travelling at high speed and we don't know how long JFK spent behind the street sign with that wound either. When we first see him he is hit so he was hit slightly earlier than that. Any more than 3 shots and the Warren Commission has two shooters or more on its hands and at the very least there is 4 there and really looking at the medical evidence from very credible witnesses, there's 5.

      So to quickly recap. 1. Miss 2. JFK's throat. 3. JFK's back 4. Connelly's wound. 5. Head shot.
      That's true, two FBI agents that were at Parkland and then followed the body to the autopsy reported that they observed Dr. Humes probe the back wound several times and found it to be a shallow wound. He didn't probe the throat wound or dissect the head and neck to trace the bullet paths.

      Later, after Oswald was shot, he rewrote the autopsy and burned the original and his notes. *ding ding*.

      “This opening was probed by Dr. HUMES with the finger, at which time it was determined that the trajectory of the missile entering at this point had entered at a downward position of 45 to 60 degrees.” A bullet entering at a downward angle could not have come out through the throat, as the single–bullet theory demanded.
      “Further probing determined that the distance travelled by this missile was a short distance inasmuch as the end of the opening could be felt with the finger.” It became known several years later that the pathologists had been forbidden, presumably by one or more of their military superiors, to dissect the back and throat wounds (see Clay Shaw Trial Transcript, pp.115–8). Such dissection would almost certainly have confirmed or denied the possibility that a single bullet had passed through President Kennedy’s body and had caused both wounds.
      http://22november1963.org.uk/sibert-and-oneill-report
      "A common thug can kill someone, but it takes the talents of an intelligence service to make a murder appear to be a suicide or accident death." -- James Angleton, CIA, Chief of Counterintelligence.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by unclefred View Post
        That's true, two FBI agents that were at Parkland and then followed the body to the autopsy reported that they observed Dr. Humes probe the back wound several times and found it to be a shallow wound. He didn't probe the throat wound or dissect the head and neck to trace the bullet paths.

        Later, after Oswald was shot, he rewrote the autopsy and burned the original and his notes. *ding ding*.


        http://22november1963.org.uk/sibert-and-oneill-report
        Yes I have read this myself, good post.

        Comment


        • Will some one of you experts try to explain why Bobby seemed to hide evidence during the farce that was the so called autopsy.
          Or, was he trying to stall for time and R-E-V-E-N-G-E.
          The Rats struck first.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Tascosa View Post
            Will some one of you experts try to explain why Bobby seemed to hide evidence during the farce that was the so called autopsy.
            Or, was he trying to stall for time and R-E-V-E-N-G-E.
            The Rats struck first.
            I hope the term experts wan't said with your tongue placed too firmly in your cheek..

            Well first of all he wasn't sure who'd done it but more importantly he was very much aware that the evidence strongly led towards the CIA Mafia plots to kill Castro that he and his late brother were very much implicated in along with some very prominent people in the FBI, CIA and the administration.* Also was the fear of a war if communists were implicated (and they were being implicated) in his brothers death, it could lead to nuclear war. Also Bobby was in deep deep grief. At first he went at it to find out but quickly grief took over and he lost all his energy and then his power**.

            *Something the Mafia knew and understood very well.
            ** Effectively the whole point of the hit.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by copenhagen View Post
              It is interesting to note that the two papers he is holding were essentially Leninist and the other Trotskyist, two opposing socialist standpoints who often hated each other. A real dedicated soldier of the Soviet cause would know this.
              Interesting, not something that I was aware. I probably should have said communist publications in my previous post.

              Additionally in that whole area Oswald did not actually fraternise with known socialist / Marxist groups that were well known. He only wrote a few letters to them. Instead he was seen hanging around with very right wing anti Castro groups and people from the far right white supremacist community.
              No surprises here. Those backyard photos just never made any sense. They are just way too convenient of a tie-in to the gun and his supposed links to pro-communist sympathies. It’s no different than Ruby saying he shot Oswald because he felt sorry for Jackie (or something like that). Where is there any evidence of him having any sympathies for the Kennedy’s prior to these events? Matter of fact didn’t one of the strippers recall him saying how much he hated them?

              I hope you don’t mind that I have more questions than any input that I can offer. My expertise is pretty much limited to saw the movie, then read the book.

              The main thing that still puzzles me about those backyard photos is that during the Warren Commission Marina she said she took the pictures. It seems a lot of photo experts say they are fake. I know Marina has recanted on her earlier story when she said LHO was guilty and now is on record as saying she believes him to be innocent. Has she recanted on her story of taking the photos as well? Was she under pressure at the time to answer a certain way?

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Canuckster View Post
                Interesting, not something that I was aware. I probably should have said communist publications in my previous post.



                No surprises here. Those backyard photos just never made any sense. They are just way too convenient of a tie-in to the gun and his supposed links to pro-communist sympathies. It’s no different than Ruby saying he shot Oswald because he felt sorry for Jackie (or something like that). Where is there any evidence of him having any sympathies for the Kennedy’s prior to these events? Matter of fact didn’t one of the strippers recall him saying how much he hated them?

                I hope you don’t mind that I have more questions than any input that I can offer. My expertise is pretty much limited to saw the movie, then read the book.

                The main thing that still puzzles me about those backyard photos is that during the Warren Commission Marina she said she took the pictures. It seems a lot of photo experts say they are fake. I know Marina has recanted on her earlier story when she said LHO was guilty and now is on record as saying she believes him to be innocent. Has she recanted on her story of taking the photos as well? Was she under pressure at the time to answer a certain way?
                That's ok. I'm glad to chat in a way that doesn't bring up that notions of tin foil hats. Glad you're enjoying the thread.To be blunt, my reading is taking to me the point that JFK was a mob hit with LHO being the patsy he said he was. Remember he was being handled by men who worked on the CIA Castro plots whilst also being employees of the mob. A dual role not uncommon in these circles at the time. If you look at things like the photo with the papers,(Marina a Russian taking them was very useful , if not desirable) ordering a rifle and a gun that is easily traceable via mail order (when he could have bought both in Texas and not left a trail). Plus his fronting of a pro Castro organisation out of the same building that the pro Castro men he hung out with operated, fighting in the streets with pro Castro people he actually knew that the police who attended felt was staged,appearing on local tv to talk about Marxism, writing letters to communist newspapers but not actually joining or socialising with local communist groups. A man claiming to be LHO shooting other people targets at a shooting range and saying he thought he was shooting at JFK and clearly stating his name. A man using the name LHO being rude and abusive with a Dallas car dealer saying he was about to come into a lot of money. This is the signs of the leaving of a paper trail of evidence towards this man. They wanted the public to have someone to pin this on and fast. They had one.
                Last edited by copenhagen; 24 Dec 13, 16:04.

                Comment


                • I don't know, who was behind it or who killed JFK, but this much I do know Oswald didn't, Oswald didn't have any money, it takes money and papers to travel, like for instance to the Soviet Union and Mexico etc (paper trail), like Copenhagen said above, he could have bought a better weapon in just about any Pawn Shop in Texas at that time without any questions asked or an ID ( I bought a lot of Rifles in my collection that way) (another paper trail) he was not the world's greatest marksman, he tried to kill an Army General at a much shorter distance several weeks before and missed by a couple of feet and now you are telling me he made two Head Shots at a moving target at a greater distance, I ain't buying it, this guy was set up, he was someone's patsy.
                  Trying hard to be the Man, that my Dog believes I am!

                  Comment


                  • ...and now you are telling me he made two Head Shots at a moving target at a greater distance...
                    ...and moving away from him at that at an appreciable speed. Not the optimum of sniper opportunities.
                    Youthful Exuberance Is No Match For Old Age And Treachery.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Trung Si View Post
                      I don't know, who was behind it or who killed JFK, but this much I do know Oswald didn't, Oswald didn't have any money, it takes money and papers to travel, like for instance to the Soviet Union and Mexico etc (paper trail), like Copenhagen said above, he could have bought a better weapon in just about any Pawn Shop in Texas at that time without any questions asked or an ID ( I bought a lot of Rifles in my collection that way) (another paper trail) he was not the world's greatest marksman, he tried to kill an Army General at a much shorter distance several weeks before and missed by a couple of feet and now you are telling me he made two Head Shots at a moving target at a greater distance, I ain't buying it, this guy was set up, he was someone's patsy.
                      You might like to know that at this point, there was a congressional investigation into mail order gun companies, including the company that LHO ordered his rifle from.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by copenhagen View Post
                        You might like to know that at this point, there was a congressional investigation into mail order gun companies, including the company that LHO ordered his rifle from.
                        Exactly, Mailorder = Documentation = Paper Trail.
                        In those days no ID or paperwork was required to buy a Rifle in a Pawn Shop in Texas, you could even use an assumed name and no one would have been the wiser.
                        Trying hard to be the Man, that my Dog believes I am!

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Trung Si View Post
                          Exactly, Mailorder = Documentation = Paper Trail.
                          In those days no ID or paperwork was required to buy a Rifle in a Pawn Shop in Texas, you could even use an assumed name and no one would have been the wiser.
                          I was aware of this. That dog don't hunt!

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by HMS Jr. View Post
                            ...and moving away from him at that at an appreciable speed. Not the optimum of sniper opportunities.
                            Yes, I've always been uneasy with this point. I'm not used to guns, only fired some shot with a MAS 39/46 some decade ago at a static target. But correcting gun positions along three axis simultaneously yeld a S curve, not exactly the easiest aiming position.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Metryll View Post
                              Yes, I've always been uneasy with this point. I'm not used to guns, only fired some shot with a MAS 39/46 some decade ago at a static target. But correcting gun positions along three axis simultaneously yeld a S curve, not exactly the easiest aiming position.
                              Hi Metryll. Thanks for stopping by. Just to say there have been some interesting "French Connections" if you pardon the expression in regard to all this over the years.

                              Comment


                              • Just to add to the mix. Very interesting. Sounds like a man who has been well prepared to me. Not particularly unhinged either for a lonely nut. If you notice he when asked he won't reveal the number or names of the members of his group in New Orleans. Well he was the only member of that New Orleans group working out of the same office as those pro far right anti Castro individuals who beat up such people never mind tolerated them in the same building.



                                Comment

                                Latest Topics

                                Collapse

                                Working...
                                X