Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

JFK Assasination

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

  • Originally posted by Rojik View Post
    Ahhh, forgot to mention that bit. The pathology (right word?) mentioned in the House Committee is telling. I've seen it all before, but not from such a strong source.



    That's another rabbit hole. I've looked at that briefly, and decided I'd worry about one hole at a time.

    Do you realise that if we posted this stuff in 1964 we'd be dead a week later?

    Lucky the internet (or I) wasn't around then.
    Quite possibly...


    As was discussed in a previous post that when you take the Parkland doctor testimony and you watch the actual Zapruder film, when you include the bullet we know missed, there are 4 shots there. Possibly even 5 if Connelly remembers his wound correctly and then related to the bullet wound in JFK's back meaning Connelly's wound was not from passing through JFK but two separate bullets. But that is uncertain. Certainly not 3 though. Actually when you include the missed shot that the Warren Commission included it makes the 3 shot idea even more absurd and thus the one shooter idea aswell. The Zapruder film simply demolishes the magic bullet theory. In fact having carefully watched the Zapruder film, if you still hold to the 3 bullet idea it is you that is taking a leap of faith into the improbable.



    Ironically this man worked on Oswald aswell....
    Last edited by copenhagen; 07 Dec 14, 07:24.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by copenhagen View Post
      The Zapruder film linked to the highly credible testimony of the Parkland trauma team is in my opinion the most telling that then wraps around what you've mentioned. The testimony of where Oswald was seen by the first attending police officer and other witnesses in the building in relation to the brief time after the shots were fired would indicate Oswald was not a shooter.
      I think you see what you want to see. Look at the governor as he comes in to view as the car passes the freeway sign. His reaction is delayed but you can see in his body that something is wrong. Many people are initially unaware of being wounded, some do things that we would think impossible to do while wounded.

      As for the Parkland doctors I think it very likely that the situation, a dying president, rattled their judgement. The exit wound was small because it was a round nose jacketed round, so they called it a wound of entry. They were wrong.
      John

      Play La Marseillaise. Play it!

      Comment


      • Originally posted by JBark View Post
        I think you see what you want to see.
        I think you are guilty of the same thing.

        Look at the governor as he comes in to view as the car passes the freeway sign. His reaction is delayed but you can see in his body that something is wrong. Many people are initially unaware of being wounded, some do things that we would think impossible to do while wounded.

        As for the Parkland doctors I think it very likely that the situation, a dying president, rattled their judgement. The exit wound was small because it was a round nose jacketed round, so they called it a wound of entry. They were wrong.
        Now to be fair you've drilled Cope on his sources, and you've drilled me on mine, but the best we get from you is 'I think', 'I believe', it is likely', 'they were wrong'.

        C'mon. I'm trying to be nice here. You keep asking us to show our workings - and we do - but you provide nothing but 'nah, I don't see it that way'.

        It's either in the links or in the thread. Shoot 'em down all you want. That's good, because then I'll learn something more, but 'I don't think so' without anything to back it up it as waste of everyone's time. Show your workings.
        Matthew 5:9 Blessed are the cheesemakers

        That's right bitches. I'm blessed!

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Rojik View Post
          I think you are guilty of the same thing.



          Now to be fair you've drilled Cope on his sources, and you've drilled me on mine, but the best we get from you is 'I think', 'I believe', it is likely', 'they were wrong'.

          C'mon. I'm trying to be nice here. You keep asking us to show our workings - and we do - but you provide nothing but 'nah, I don't see it that way'.

          It's either in the links or in the thread. Shoot 'em down all you want. That's good, because then I'll learn something more, but 'I don't think so' without anything to back it up it as waste of everyone's time. Show your workings.
          I concur. These witnesses were highly professional credible witnesses who were familiar with gunshot wounds and how they manifested. The Zapruder film ( the greatest primary source in the entire case there for all to see) backs up what they said. As can be clearly seen Kennedy grabbed his throat long before Connelly was hit but the Warren Commission tried to claim that the wound from Kennedy's throat was an exit wound that led to Connelly's wound (as part of the magic bullet theory) never mind the fact that experienced medical personal saw it as a wound of entry. Even it if was a wound of exit it is clearly obvious that it did not lead to Connelly's wound which happened later followed by the head shot . Add these to the miss and there you have four shots. More than one rifle.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Rojik View Post
            I think you are guilty of the same thing.
            Well, in the interest of this dialogue could you at least tell me what you see that is different than what I have described. This way I don't have to guess

            Originally posted by Rojik View Post
            Now to be fair you've drilled Cope on his sources,
            That's an incredible distortion of what happened. Cope posted a fake document and then offered contradictory posts on where he got the document. On any forum, in any discussion or if he had done this in a paper this is a major transgression. He offered no explanation or apology. This is "drilling?" really? I think you should consider holding Cope accountable, not me.

            Originally posted by Rojik View Post
            ...and you've drilled me on mine...
            Please refresh my memory on this. Did I ask you your views?

            Originally posted by Rojik View Post
            ...but the best we get from you is 'I think', 'I believe', it is likely', 'they were wrong'.
            Lol. This coming from the guy that wrote "But that's just me musing without anything at all to back it up." (post #523, my emphasis) I thought this was a discussion of the shooting itself which means we are expressing our opinions of what we see in the Zapruder and evidence surrounding it, like the Parkland doctors testimony.

            C'mon. I'm trying to be nice here. You keep asking us to show our workings - and we do - but you provide nothing but 'nah, I don't see it that way'.[/QUOTE]

            I will go back and see everything I've drilled you for and what you have offered of concrete evidence. I suggest you take a look at your post #523 as I referenced above. Like you I have read more books on this shooting then I can count and have given them away over the years. Thanks you so much for being nice, by the way.

            Originally posted by Rojik View Post
            It's either in the links or in the thread. Shoot 'em down all you want. That's good, because then I'll learn something more, but 'I don't think so' without anything to back it up it as waste of everyone's time. Show your workings.
            You guys are talking four or five shots with no evidence to back it up. How am I supposed to address this? This is in the links or thread? Please don't talk to me about wasting everybody's time. That is uncalled for. You are believing every source that you find without determining credibility, including the HSCA. In case you don't know it having elected officials sit down and hear evidence does not carry a lot of weight in this country and it seems that the evidence shown to them does not back your beliefs.
            John

            Play La Marseillaise. Play it!

            Comment


            • Interesting. Not sure about the audio...

              Last edited by copenhagen; 07 Dec 14, 14:36.

              Comment


              • For interest but does include the footage of Ruby at the Oswald press conference that Rojik referred to earlier...

                Comment


                • Originally posted by copenhagen View Post
                  Interesting. Not sure about the audio...

                  Good thing you don't buy the audio because it has been disproven categorically. The belief that this was from a motorcycle in the motorcade riden by Dallas P.D. Officer H.B. McLain has been disproved not only by McLain but just about everyone (except Thompson I guess) and the video evidence concurs that McLain was not where those that evaluated the recording said he must have been.

                  It is understandable that Thompson will hang to evidence like this as he made his name and created a new occupation for himself with this assassination. The more evidence he can find to back up his theories the better for him.

                  It is also understandable that he will want to believe the video anamoly that he discusses in this video. I'm trying to compare the first part of what he talks about, the forward movement of Kennedy's head, with the movement of light images on Connally's head and parts of the limosine. Correct me if I am wrong; he does not say that Connally's head moves or that parts of the limo move to show that Zapruder moved the camera, he says that light spots on Connally and the limo change. Okay, I'm not sure what that means but it seems to me that if he measured Kennedy's headmoving relative to parts of the limosine then to disprove this all he need do is show Conally or any other occupant of the limosine moving just as Kennedy does Of course I'm still trying to figure out why Kennedy's head would move relative to a car part and the car part wouldn't move, if the first was a result of Zapruder moving.
                  John

                  Play La Marseillaise. Play it!

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by copenhagen View Post
                    I concur. These witnesses were highly professional credible witnesses who were familiar with gunshot wounds and how they manifested. The Zapruder film ( the greatest primary source in the entire case there for all to see) backs up what they said. As can be clearly seen Kennedy grabbed his throat long before Connelly was hit but the Warren Commission tried to claim that the wound from Kennedy's throat was an exit wound that led to Connelly's wound (as part of the magic bullet theory) never mind the fact that experienced medical personal saw it as a wound of entry. Even it if was a wound of exit it is clearly obvious that it did not lead to Connelly's wound which happened later followed by the head shot . Add these to the miss and there you have four shots. More than one rifle.
                    The witnesses from Parkland clearly misrepresent the head wound so I have to believe they were so rattled that their testimony must be discredited. Look at Zapruder, can you see Kennedy's head exploding? I can. If he is shot from the grassy knoll then the wound will not be visible as it is. Parkland doctors describing the back of his head blown out have got to be wrong because I see the explosion of his head. Don't you?
                    John

                    Play La Marseillaise. Play it!

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by JBark View Post
                      Lol. This coming from the guy that wrote "But that's just me musing without anything at all to back it up." (post #523, my emphasis) I thought this was a discussion of the shooting itself which means we are expressing our opinions of what we see in the Zapruder and evidence surrounding it, like the Parkland doctors testimony.
                      The full quote was:

                      Originally posted by Rojik View Post

                      Oswald? Undecided. I think he probably was a shooter, but I also think he might have been set up to let the real shooters get away. But that's just me musing without anything at all to back it up.
                      I didn't realise saying I was undecided about something was a hanging offence around here. Maybe I just should have bullshitted without backup like some.

                      Originally posted by JBark View Post
                      Like you I have read more books on this shooting then I can count and have given them away over the years.
                      So show your workings. It shouldn't be that hard for you. After all...

                      Originally posted by JBark View Post
                      I've been posting on this forum for years as you can see for yourself. My prime area of interest is WWII. If someone in that area asked for a source they would get book title, author and page number. Some posters scan sections of books and post them, with proper citation. I'm surprised that you do not do that.

                      Originally posted by JBark View Post
                      Thanks you so much for being nice, by the way.
                      You are welcome.
                      Matthew 5:9 Blessed are the cheesemakers

                      That's right bitches. I'm blessed!

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Rojik View Post
                        The full quote was:



                        I didn't realise saying I was undecided about something was a hanging offence around here. Maybe I just should have bullshitted without backup like some.
                        If this is what you are accusing me of then have the balls to come right out and say it...and when you do show me where I did this. Show me where I DRILLED you, please show me.

                        All I ask for is a discussion. If you are of the opinion that there were 4 or 5 shots I am asking what you see as evidence of this. I am asking what you SEE.

                        Above Cope posted a video in which Josiah Thompson orates what he believes is evidence to contradict his original 1966 belief that Kennedy's head moved forward 2", indicating the energy of a bullet impact. I think the evidence he presents in that video is wrong and presented in such a way as to mislead anyone listening to him. He also refers to a dictabelt recording of what was believed to be an police transmission "stuck open" in Dealey Plaza during the assassination and an indication of four shots. A quick online search will show that this evidence has been found to be false as well. Check Wikipedia for a quick and easy reference.

                        Again I am willing to have a discussion of our beliefs, our opinions, our observations. If we refer to something that requires reference it should be offered and a request for a reference honored. My drilling of Cope was, as I have spelled out, over an obviously fake document, when he mentioned its source he later contradicted himself. there is a very obvious need to address this issue. You avoided showing me where I drilled you for sources so I'm going to assume you've made that up and I will ignore it. If there is a statement of fact regarding this topic I have made that you think requires a citation show it to me and I will offer one. I don't think you are going to do this.

                        Let's have a man to man discussion, if you are up to that.
                        John

                        Play La Marseillaise. Play it!

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by JBark View Post
                          Let's have a man to man discussion, if you are up to that.
                          I don't claim the be the font of knowledge on this subject. Far from it, and I've said that many times before you joined in. I'm someone that enjoys reading about another subject (the Mafia in the USA) and time and time again it leads me to this subject. So I offer things that I've seen or read, and I do it admitting that I only know one part of the puzzle intimately. I don't care if you prove my assumptions wrong (or sorta wrong as I reckon that's as close as either side can hope to get in this imbroglio). I'll learn something and that is always a good thing.

                          But get down off that high horse before you fall off it. You have demanded proof and citations from both of us. We've given some and told you there are plenty more earlier in the thread, but you admittedly 'skimmed it' and don't want to read 400+ posts. Well good for you, but I'm not rewriting, re-reading and re-fact checking anything because you couldn't be bothered to read what is already there. And worse than that you made a song and dance about how where you come from a citation, page numbers and even scans of the book will be given on a challenge to a fact, yet when I ask to see your workings I get a 'A quick online search will show that this evidence has been found to be false as well. Check Wikipedia for a quick and easy reference.'

                          Really?

                          You check it. You post the points you think support your theory. You find the links and put them here for us to debate. And read the whole thread - nobody here wants to rewrite old posts every time a new player appears. Do your own homework, and FFS at least have the decency to do what you demand of others.

                          Then, and only then, will we have a man to man discussion of this.
                          Matthew 5:9 Blessed are the cheesemakers

                          That's right bitches. I'm blessed!

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Rojik View Post
                            Then, and only then, will we have a man to man discussion of this.
                            Truth be told I don't think we will have such a discussion, at least not with contribution from you. I have gone over OUR INTERACTION since I came on this thread and aside from politely asking where you get three shooters (going on memory here) I don't see where I have asked you for sources in a way that can be called drilling.

                            My statement about sources (referring to other parts of this forum) was not made to you, you had nothing to do with that discussion and it was made fifteen days ago so I am racking my brain trying to figure out why YOU bring it up and where you feel the right to express this indigation toward me. I see little interaction between us and none that justifies your posts that are directed at me. Is this attention getting? Have I unjustly accused Cope and you feel a need to defend him?

                            We can leave it as this: 1.) show me where I drilled you for sources,
                            2.) apologize and we can have a nice give and take, 3.) go away. I don't know what world you and Cope are from but this is not how things goes on here. Cope tried to rule this thread because I used the word "garbage" and he thought he could harang me for it and his own conduct proved to be much worse than my imagined transgression. Now you are making up some drilling I have put you through in order to attack me-why, I have no idea.

                            Tell me, what's in the water here?
                            John

                            Play La Marseillaise. Play it!

                            Comment


                            • Or door number 4: show your workings.

                              But this is getting boring so I'll move on. This is an interview with G. Robert Blakey, chief counsel and staff director to the House Select Committee on Assassinations from 1977 to 1979. Take from it what you will, but the 2003 Addendum to the interview is worth the read.

                              http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontl...robert-blakey/
                              Matthew 5:9 Blessed are the cheesemakers

                              That's right bitches. I'm blessed!

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Rojik View Post
                                Or door number 4: show your workings.
                                Ask and you shall receive. For what? For what statement do you want "workings."

                                Quid pro quo- Show me where I "drilled" you for sources. (No expectation that you will respond to this because from this recent interaction it is pretty obvious you are simply lying and playing the bully.) You and Cope make a great team here.)
                                Last edited by JBark; 10 Dec 14, 16:15.
                                John

                                Play La Marseillaise. Play it!

                                Comment

                                Latest Topics

                                Collapse

                                Working...
                                X