Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

JFK Assasination

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

  • #91
    Originally posted by Arthwys View Post
    So in other words you haven't watched it and can't explain it... or why part of his skull gets blown to the rear deck of the car.
    Why part of his skull gets blown out, I just explained. Its not really that tough to explain.

    I've seen the film, but as a film, not still photos.
    Any man can hold his place when the bands play and women throw flowers; it is when the enemy presses close and metal shears through the ranks that one can acertain which are soldiers, and which are not.

    Comment


    • #92
      Originally posted by Arnold J Rimmer View Post
      Why part of his skull gets blown out, I just explained. Its not really that tough to explain.

      I've seen the film, but as a film, not still photos.
      Actually you didn't explain anything at all. You were talking about the fluid escape and mentioned the skull detachment not at all. You see the problem you're having is, your simplified approach to answering doesn't actually address the issues...

      Why would the right parietal section of the skull be blown to the rear of the car if the bullet had come from the right rear, as Oswald was positioned in regards to Kennedy's position?

      Your explanation of hydrostatic shock allowing for 270 degrees of deflection from point of entry doesn't wash for this. That would have to be a 180 degrees... Physics argues against that happening. In fact it's the least likely physical reaction to occur from a shot that had to come from the rear if Oswald was the only shooter, but as can be plainly seen the shot came from the front.

      Here you go:
      BoRG
      "... and that was the last time they called me Freakboy Moses"

      Comment


      • #93
        Originally posted by Arthwys View Post
        Actually you didn't explain anything at all. You were talking about the fluid escape and mentioned the skull detachment not at all. You see the problem you're having is, your simplified approach to answering doesn't actually address the issues...

        Why would the right parietal section of the skull be blown to the rear of the car if the bullet had come from the right rear, as Oswald was positioned in regards to Kennedy's position?

        Your explanation of hydrostatic shock allowing for 270 degrees of deflection from point of entry doesn't wash for this. That would have to be a 180 degrees... Physics argues against that happening. In fact it's the least likely physical reaction to occur from a shot that had to come from the rear if Oswald was the only shooter, but as can be plainly seen the shot came from the front.
        I said IIRC up to 270 degrees.

        Have you had much formal training in gunshot wounds?
        Any man can hold his place when the bands play and women throw flowers; it is when the enemy presses close and metal shears through the ranks that one can acertain which are soldiers, and which are not.

        Comment


        • #94
          Originally posted by Arnold J Rimmer View Post
          I said IIRC up to 270 degrees.

          Have you had much formal training in gunshot wounds?
          Ah here it comes... so you can't explain what's on the film and go to the GSW experience question. I imagine not as much experience as you, which is what you are going for, but I have extensive experience with Physics, and hydrodynamics. Which is where you're trying to draw your explanation of hydrostatic shock from...

          Physics: the Alleged shot from above and behind caused his entire upper body to lurch backwards and his head to lift up and back... I guess if normal physics were suspended this might be possible.

          What is visible in Frame 312 is Kennedy hunched forward and leaning slightly to his left with his hands at his upper chest in reaction to the throat wound.
          Frame 313: we see the initial impact of the round , spray of released fluid from the compromised cranium and the beginnings of the backward movement of the body and raising of the head in reaction to the impact of the round...
          Frame 314: the fluid spray expands, the movement continues and the head has lifted some more.
          Frame 315: the spalled dermis can be seen lifting, and the body and head continue their movements to the back
          Frame 316: the speed of the bodies movement increases as the kinetic energy transfer has completely overcome the inertia
          Frame 317: the movement continues, notice how it is moving back and to the left of Kennedy's original position in frame 312...
          Frame 318-320: The body continues the rearward motion.
          Frame 321: the body stops moving backwards having reached the obstruction of the seat-back
          Frame 322: In reaction to the impedance of the seat the body now moves forward again expending the remaining kinetic energy transferred from the round.
          BoRG
          "... and that was the last time they called me Freakboy Moses"

          Comment


          • #95
            Originally posted by Arthwys View Post
            Ah here it comes... so you can't explain what's on the film and go to the GSW experience question. I imagine not as much experience as you, which is what you are going for, but I have extensive experience with Physics, and hydrodynamics. Which is where you're trying to draw your explanation of hydrostatic shock from...

            Physics: the Alleged shot from above and behind caused his entire upper body to lurch backwards and his head to lift up and back... I guess if normal physics were suspended this might be possible.

            What is visible in Frame 312 is Kennedy hunched forward and leaning slightly to his left with his hands at his upper chest in reaction to the throat wound.
            Frame 313: we see the initial impact of the round , spray of released fluid from the compromised cranium and the beginnings of the backward movement of the body and raising of the head in reaction to the impact of the round...
            Frame 314: the fluid spray expands, the movement continues and the head has lifted some more.
            Frame 315: the spalled dermis can be seen lifting, and the body and head continue their movements to the back
            Frame 316: the speed of the bodies movement increases as the kinetic energy transfer has completely overcome the inertia
            Frame 317: the movement continues, notice how it is moving back and to the left of Kennedy's original position in frame 312...
            Frame 318-320: The body continues the rearward motion.
            Frame 321: the body stops moving backwards having reached the obstruction of the seat-back
            Frame 322: In reaction to the impedance of the seat the body now moves forward again expending the remaining kinetic energy transferred from the round.
            My point was to ask what experience you are basing your conclusions on.

            We require an autopsy to determine entry, exit, and explosive rent wounds, not eyeballing a grainy B&W movie.

            What I have seen from all sources looks about right. I'm not an expert, but I've seen a lot of gunshot wounds, and had some formal training, some classes of which having used JFK as an example of the difficulty of explaining to a jury of laymen of why the victim doesn't look like they show in the movies.

            This is hardly the first or last murder where explaining why the corpse looks like it does requires expert witrnesses.

            As I've already said: nothing I've seen looks out of place for a murder case. Without an autopsy report there's no way to determine angle of impact and all the other associated detail, but his head venting from a high velocity hit is perfectly normal.

            I have seldom encountered a murder case that doesn't have some aspect of controversy attached to it by someone.

            I've seen the movie, I've heard the claims. I don't buy it. JFK is dead, Oswald's dead, Ruby is dead and the case is closed. If there was some conspiracy group that had a bungled plan and brilliant cover-up, then they got away clean.
            Any man can hold his place when the bands play and women throw flowers; it is when the enemy presses close and metal shears through the ranks that one can acertain which are soldiers, and which are not.

            Comment


            • #96
              Originally posted by Arnold J Rimmer View Post

              ...I've seen the movie, I've heard the claims. I don't buy it. JFK is dead, Oswald's dead, Ruby is dead and the case is closed. If there was some conspiracy group that had a bungled plan and brilliant cover-up, then they got away clean.
              So to paraphrase, you got nothing.
              BoRG
              "... and that was the last time they called me Freakboy Moses"

              Comment


              • #97
                Originally posted by Arthwys View Post
                So to paraphrase, you got nothing.
                Nothing to get. Oswald killed JFK. Ruby killed Oswald. Ruby died in custody. End of story.

                So, either I'm right, and it ends there, or you're right, and the bad guys got away clean, smirking into their brandy and cigars at the memory of it.
                Any man can hold his place when the bands play and women throw flowers; it is when the enemy presses close and metal shears through the ranks that one can acertain which are soldiers, and which are not.

                Comment


                • #98
                  Originally posted by Arnold J Rimmer View Post
                  Nothing to get. Oswald killed JFK. Ruby killed Oswald. Ruby died in custody. End of story.

                  So, either I'm right, and it ends there, or you're right, and the bad guys got away clean, smirking into their brandy and cigars at the memory of it.
                  Well I guess considering your own government determined that there was evidence of a conspiracy, then you're wrong... Glad we got that settled.
                  BoRG
                  "... and that was the last time they called me Freakboy Moses"

                  Comment


                  • #99
                    Originally posted by Arthwys View Post
                    Well I guess considering your own government determined that there was evidence of a conspiracy, then you're wrong... Glad we got that settled.
                    No, not at all. They said there was evidence to support a conspiracy. If you read what they reported, not just the press release,they came to no conclusion, just said there was evidence that could support a conspiracy. It was a typical Congressional inquiry: it aknowledged all possibilities so that in future years members of the committee could point to specific excerpts to show they were right, no matter what happened.

                    Being Canadian, I can understand you might be confused, but the US Congress is not a credible source for anything.

                    Every murder has evidence of a conspiracy. Conspiracy is a frequent defense arguement. Conspiracy by others, conspiracy by the police, bu society...what is noteable in a murder case is when the killer says, 'I did it'. That's noteworthy.

                    Again: this isn't anything new or exciting in murder cases.

                    What you've got is untrained speculation, unreferenced guesses, hearsay, and bias. Without knowing what a murder investigation looks like, you're trying to build one.

                    Its a fun hobby-I've had countless of these chats on BBs over the years, but thats all it is: a friendly conversation.
                    Any man can hold his place when the bands play and women throw flowers; it is when the enemy presses close and metal shears through the ranks that one can acertain which are soldiers, and which are not.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Arthwys View Post
                      Well I guess considering your own government determined that there was evidence of a conspiracy, then you're wrong... Glad we got that settled.
                      Arthwys, have you read Robert Harris' analyses? It's quite lengthy. I posted a youtube link a page back or so. Hs analysis of the shooting angles and the frames from three of the films, Zapruder et al, shows a probable shooter from the DalTex building and one from the front of the motorcade. He is very careful in his assessments and doesn't attempt to rule LHO out as a shooter as well. It's interesting that mob associate Jim Braden was detained by police as he was in that building. He claimed he was looking for a phone. A witness saw him on the third floor, where Harris believes shots came from. If I remember correctly.
                      "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 Arnold J Rimmer View Post

                        What you've got is untrained speculation, unreferenced guesses, hearsay, and bias. Without knowing what a murder investigation looks like, you're trying to build one.

                        Its a fun hobby-I've had countless of these chats on BBs over the years, but thats all it is: a friendly conversation.
                        I've got some bad news for you. I was a paralegal for a criminal trial lawyer. We worked murder cases. Interesting that your assumption led you wrong again. I've also experience in conspiracies, on both sides of the law. Cops and criminals both. Murders run the gamut from clean to messy, simple to convoluted.

                        There was enough evidence suppressed, witness testimony revised and simple re-writing of the laws of time-space and physics that there's little room left for the single gunman theory to breathe at all. Yet you've provided nothing in proof for your argument. Just your opinion that it is so...

                        So you want to work on experience based arguments. Ok how much experience do you have with planned murders. and how much with conspiracy to commit murder?

                        How many times have you had to bring subpoena against the defence for evidence suppressed? or for the prosecution for that matter.

                        How many voir-dires have you had to work through to the completion of a conspiracy trial for all the convolutions, new witnsses, conflicting testimony, evidence after the fact, and context of testimony, just to find the truth to a "simple" murder trial?

                        No offence is intended when I say this, but you've only offered simplistic answers to actions and consequences that are rarely anything but simple.

                        Do you have anything else?
                        BoRG
                        "... and that was the last time they called me Freakboy Moses"

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by unclefred View Post
                          Arthwys, have you read Robert Harris' analyses? It's quite lengthy. I posted a youtube link a page back or so. Hs analysis of the shooting angles and the frames from three of the films, Zapruder et al, shows a probable shooter from the DalTex building and one from the front of the motorcade. He is very careful in his assessments and doesn't attempt to rule LHO out as a shooter as well. It's interesting that mob associate Jim Braden was detained by police as he was in that building. He claimed he was looking for a phone. A witness saw him on the third floor, where Harris believes shots came from. If I remember correctly.
                          Actually I'm watching it right now.
                          BoRG
                          "... and that was the last time they called me Freakboy Moses"

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Arnold J Rimmer View Post
                            Well, based on the location of the rifle & cases, you have the shooter's angle. Its not a mystery. If you have a conspiracy, they would have to make sure each shooter had the same firer's angle of reference, or it would be evident that there were multiple shooters.
                            Why? Shooter's angle does not make the case alone. One must tie together shooter's angle with wound angle. If there is an ability to control evidence and disclosure to the people then much of this will not matter. Primary jurisdiction for this murder rested with Dallas but they were never permitted to even carry out an autopsy. The autopsy at Bethesda is done by men without extensive experience in gunshot wounds. Changes are made in the descriptions of wounds to alter how the public will understand the shooting.

                            Originally posted by Arnold J Rimmer View Post
                            Its the single most important aspect of the murder: it shows he acted alone. If there was a conspiracy, men who were planning a murder of the President, the patsy would not be wandering around loose for hours after the shooting.
                            Not true at all. He was the only employee to leave the building when a role was called. A rifle has been left at the scene which will eventually be connected to him, his prints will be found on the area around the 6th floor window of the TSBD. An alert is sent out with his description, the focus is on him. The job is done. There is no reason a patsy has to be corralled. We saw that he could be silenced even while in custody.

                            Originally posted by Arnold J Rimmer View Post
                            Witness statements are the least reliable form of evidence. In real murder cass, you commonly get conflicting statements. People want to associate themselves with an exciting event. They don't want to say 'I missed everything'. No, suddenly they recall information of key importance. Often they come to believe it themselves.
                            The point is that you've stated LHO must not be allowed to wander about and I'm pointing out that it did not matter. Witness testimony contradicting his whereabouts was squashed. As long as he is alone during the shooting time the plan can go along as planned, if not there was possibly a contingency.

                            Originally posted by Arnold J Rimmer View Post
                            No. You could have chopped the man to bits at that range. Where it it written that the assassain had to use a crappy rifle? Why not use the best weapon for the job?
                            I would answer that the plan called for having Oswald bring his rifle to work and having him or someone else use it while the primary shooter is behind the picket fence on the Grassy Knoll. The crappy rifle is the one that Oswald owns so it gets left behind to make sure eyes point to him, that's its sole purpose. The primary shooter could have a much better rifle.

                            Originally posted by Arnold J Rimmer View Post
                            Again, either a nut or really bad planning. If it is a conspiracy, JFK cannot leave the kill zone alive, and Oswald must be present to take the fall. this secret cabal certainly didn't cover their bases that day, despite being clever enough to walk away clear for decades afterward.
                            It seems your contention is that since LHO left the scene and was apprehended due to APB's put out with his description it was a simple murder by him alone. It could not be a conspiracy because the shooter would not have been left to leave the scene and later be apprehended when his description was put out in an APB. I missed the logic here.

                            Originally posted by Arnold J Rimmer View Post
                            Except people here are busy claiming Oswald's background proves him not to be a lone nut marxist. Why not use somebody like Sirhan Sirhan, a unknown mentally-ill young man, or the petty criminal who killed MLK?
                            I would certainly have to question what the basis is for a statement like that. Oswald had a difficult, fatherless upbringing, moving and changing schools many time. His life was marked by many trouble spots, he was evaluated by juvenile reformatory psychiatrist who listed a number of issues including "schizoid features and passive aggressive tendencies" He was court martialed three times, once receiving brig time for fighting with an NCO. His third court martial was for unlawfully discharging his weapon while on guard duty. He was a high school drop out and received an undesirable Marine Corps discharge because he lied about why he wnated out of the corps. Those are the high points. Care to comment?

                            Originally posted by Arnold J Rimmer View Post
                            Doesn't fly. Tibbet was shot down in what can only be described as a classic ped stop.
                            You have no idea why he was stopped but considering the POTUS had recently been killed do you think any police office stopping a man fitting the description put out would be consider a "classic ped stop."

                            Originally posted by Arnold J Rimmer View Post
                            This was the patsy, the heart of the cover-up, and they send one officer, no back-up, no contingency, to pick up a guy who when found was on foot, moving? GPS didn't exist back then, nor cell phones. How did Tibbet find Oswald, if he was sent? Oswald did not want to be found, obviously.
                            They put his description out and the DPD are going to go looking for him. POTUS has been killed in their jurisdiction (we won't discuss the police cruiser that came to LHO's house after he left.) All you can suggest is that because LHO was found, but didn't want to be, this means it was not a conspiracy. Am I understanding you correctly?

                            Originally posted by Arnold J Rimmer View Post
                            Doesn't work on any level. You've clipped the President, and your patsy is in the wind. You send one officer, no backup, to bring him in.
                            I think the Dallas PD had more than one police cruiser out there, what do you think? His description is out, his name will follow when the role shows he is the only employee that has left. They will take that name and connect it to the rifle over time. Plenty of back up. What is his story: "It's my rifle but I didn't do it?" Okay.

                            Originally posted by Arnold J Rimmer View Post
                            You didn't read my post correctly. I said real murders are untidy; I said conspiracies, being manufactured with an eye towards proof, are much neater and tighter.
                            I believe JFK was murdered by Oswald. It certainly reads like a routine murder case: in other words, a mess.
                            I did read it incorrectly but I fail to see where any conspiracy theories are clean and neat. I actually don't believe your theory that normal "murders" are a mess and conspiracies are neat. I think you watch too much Mission Impossible.

                            Part of the biggest problem is you seem to know little beyond the basics of the assassination and some of the theories. If you don't know LHO's background and what a mess it was then how can you talk intelligently about this topic? You have a bad television drama view of how an assassination would be pulled off and would appear afterwards and anything that doesn't match that indicates it was LHO acting alone. I don't see any of the points you are trying to make.
                            John

                            Play La Marseillaise. Play it!

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Arthwys View Post
                              I've got some bad news for you. I was a paralegal for a criminal trial lawyer. We worked murder cases. Interesting that your assumption led you wrong again. I've also experience in conspiracies, on both sides of the law. Cops and criminals both. Murders run the gamut from clean to messy, simple to convoluted.

                              There was enough evidence suppressed, witness testimony revised and simple re-writing of the laws of time-space and physics that there's little room left for the single gunman theory to breathe at all. Yet you've provided nothing in proof for your argument. Just your opinion that it is so...

                              So you want to work on experience based arguments. Ok how much experience do you have with planned murders. and how much with conspiracy to commit murder?

                              How many times have you had to bring subpoena against the defence for evidence suppressed? or for the prosecution for that matter.

                              How many voir-dires have you had to work through to the completion of a conspiracy trial for all the convolutions, new witnsses, conflicting testimony, evidence after the fact, and context of testimony, just to find the truth to a "simple" murder trial?

                              No offence is intended when I say this, but you've only offered simplistic answers to actions and consequences that are rarely anything but simple.

                              Do you have anything else?
                              As a para-legal, then, bring evidence.

                              Not speculation, not guesswork, not theroy, but real evidence. I'm not familiar with the Canadian criminal system, but what you're brought up wouldn't make it past the Grand Jury in the States. Forget the grainy movie, what did the autopsy reveal?

                              You want to prove a conspiracy, bring some physical evidence to the table. Speculation is fine for closing arguements, but you get convictions on the hard stuff.

                              The facts are as I've presented them: the heart of any conspiracy theroy, the fall guy, was loose & unattended for hours after the incident. Solve that one: why men clever enough to clip the President & get away with it would give the green light to the shooters while the keystone of the case was loose in the wind. this may be simplistic to you, but you get convictions on the simple stuff. So far, you've offered nothing but hearsay, assumption, and guesswork-standard defense team fare, but nothing that will convict.

                              As to experience, lets not piddle with conspiracy cases, they're simple. Lets compare successful death penalty cases. Conviction and the full range of appeals, right to the needle. You want to pitch in the big leagues, you gotta hit the zone.


                              This is one of the better discussions I've had on the subject. Usually I just see a rehash of Oliver's Stone's colorful drek.
                              Any man can hold his place when the bands play and women throw flowers; it is when the enemy presses close and metal shears through the ranks that one can acertain which are soldiers, and which are not.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by JBark View Post
                                Not true at all. He was the only employee to leave the building when a role was called. A rifle has been left at the scene which will eventually be connected to him, his prints will be found on the area around the 6th floor window of the TSBD. An alert is sent out with his description, the focus is on him. The job is done. There is no reason a patsy has to be corralled. We saw that he could be silenced even while in custody.
                                After hours in custody. You don't want the patsy to live that long, in case he blurts out something useful.

                                Originally posted by JBark View Post
                                I would answer that the plan called for having Oswald bring his rifle to work and having him or someone else use it while the primary shooter is behind the picket fence on the Grassy Knoll. The crappy rifle is the one that Oswald owns so it gets left behind to make sure eyes point to him, that's its sole purpose. The primary shooter could have a much better rifle.
                                Absolutely not. Different rifles means different ballistics and proof of multpile shooters. You would need the shooters to have the exact models of rifle and ammunition, ere ugly facts surface in the autopsy.

                                Originally posted by JBark View Post
                                I would certainly have to question what the basis is for a statement like that. Oswald had a difficult, fatherless upbringing, moving and changing schools many time. His life was marked by many trouble spots, he was evaluated by juvenile reformatory psychiatrist who listed a number of issues including "schizoid features and passive aggressive tendencies" He was court martialed three times, once receiving brig time for fighting with an NCO. His third court martial was for unlawfully discharging his weapon while on guard duty. He was a high school drop out and received an undesirable Marine Corps discharge because he lied about why he wnated out of the corps. Those are the high points. Care to comment?
                                Its obvious: he did too many high profile things. There are countless nuts with lower profiles who would have served much better.

                                Originally posted by JBark View Post
                                You have no idea why he was stopped but considering the POTUS had recently been killed do you think any police office stopping a man fitting the description put out would be consider a "classic ped stop."
                                The witnesses to the shooting and the body placement show the officer-to-suspect positioning of the classic ped stop. That is how you approach a suspect.

                                In short, NOT the way Tibbets would approach a known subject, as someone here suggested.

                                Originally posted by JBark View Post
                                They put his description out and the DPD are going to go looking for him. POTUS has been killed in their jurisdiction (we won't discuss the police cruiser that came to LHO's house after he left.) All you can suggest is that because LHO was found, but didn't want to be, this means it was not a conspiracy. Am I understanding you correctly?
                                You set up a scenario to pin the killing on a guy, you would need to make sure that guy isn't in a car to Odessa when the green light is given.

                                Originally posted by JBark View Post
                                I think the Dallas PD had more than one police cruiser out there, what do you think? His description is out, his name will follow when the role shows he is the only employee that has left. They will take that name and connect it to the rifle over time. Plenty of back up. What is his story: "It's my rifle but I didn't do it?" Okay.
                                You've seen the radio traffic logs, right?

                                Originally posted by JBark View Post
                                I did read it incorrectly but I fail to see where any conspiracy theories are clean and neat. I actually don't believe your theory that normal "murders" are a mess and conspiracies are neat. I think you watch too much Mission Impossible.
                                No, I'm a police officer, have been since the 80s. Never seen missile impossible.

                                Originally posted by JBark View Post
                                Part of the biggest problem is you seem to know little beyond the basics of the assassination and some of the theories. If you don't know LHO's background and what a mess it was then how can you talk intelligently about this topic? You have a bad television drama view of how an assassination would be pulled off and would appear afterwards and anything that doesn't match that indicates it was LHO acting alone. I don't see any of the points you are trying to make.
                                Actually I have a good working knowledge based on training and experience on how a murder investigation is conducted. I can't help you understand, because its obvious you've already made up your mind.
                                Any man can hold his place when the bands play and women throw flowers; it is when the enemy presses close and metal shears through the ranks that one can acertain which are soldiers, and which are not.

                                Comment

                                Latest Topics

                                Collapse

                                Working...
                                X