JFK: Case Not Closed

[boooeee]

I was wondering if anybody got a chance to see the Fox News special last night called "JFK: Case Not Closed".

From what I've been able to gather, it was an hour long special, hosted by Greta Van Susteren, which attempted to cast doubt on the lone gunman theory of the JFK assassination.

I've been able to find some info on it on the Fox News website, but I was hoping someone on the forum could provide more detail.

I don't have too much hope for it, considering it presents the now debunked police dictabelt recording as evidence for more than three shots being fired.

One thing that intrigued me was an excerpt from an interview with the creators of the "documentary":
Peter: When we went to visit Cyril Wecht in Pittsburgh, we joked about the single bullet theory — the way it’s produced during JFK the movie. I came up with the crazy idea to put two skeletons back to back with red glow rods going through them to illustrate, in a three-dimensional way, how the magic bullet would look if we didn’t have skin. Cyril worked with prop masters to set it up. That illustration is powerful.
I would be interested in seeing this illustration too, since it is my understanding that Kennedy's and Connolly's wounds line up pretty well in 3D computer simluations.

[wert]

Hm.

We are in a tv "sweeps" period I believe.
Wasn't Fox the folks that brought us the infamous "moon hoax" special?

Some good information about the "magic bullet" right here:

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

[CurtC]

wert wrote:
Wasn't Fox the folks that brought us the infamout "moon hoax" special?Don't forget Alien Autopsy.

[neutrino_cannon]

Two posters with simpsons avatars griping about fox in a row?

Planet X must be coming soon.


Hm...

Sounds like average fox woo woo fare, concern for ratings coming first.

How very typical, formulaic and boring.

[Garrette]

The magic bullet bit in support of conspiracists is probably the one that irks me most because it is so easily explainable.

I honestly don't know if the Kennedy-Connelly wound path would line up, but they don't have to.

Bullets that strike objects don't always continue to travel in a straight line. In fact, they frequently do not. Some bullets are designed not to travel in a straight line (the M-16 of US Army fame is one; the bullet tumbles and is almost guaranteed not to exit the body at a point directly opposite the entry wound.

The non-linear path of bullets is even more pronounced if bone or cartilage is struck.

That people still hang on to this bit of nonsense is truly disheartening.

[RonSceptic]

That people still hang on to this bit of nonsense is truly disheartening.

How true.:(

Plenty of people are willing to believe that there was a conspiracy, even though there is no plausible evidence or agreement for who, why or how.

It's as if some people enjoy being in a position where the truth is some great secret, known only to those seekers after truth who can walk into a book store and part with $10.

They prefer fantasy, any fantasy, to the rather sad reality of the assassination.

The case against Oswald was cut and dried. It was an opportunist murder by a derranged wierdo who had tried at least one previous rifle asassination.

No mystery.

[sackett]

Not JFK -again?-

Aw hell. Suppose some cabal of criminals, politicians, and businessmen did fall upon one of their own and have him killed. Would that be so surprising? Would it still be interesting all these sad years later?

[Bikewer]

Those round-nosed, FMJ military-type bullets will take some extremely strange paths though tissue.

When I was training to be a medic, they showed us a bunch of rather nasty training films, including "massive tissue wounds". Yecch.....

Anyway, one unfortunate soldier was hit in the upper thigh with a Japanese 6.5mm round (somewhat higher velocity than the Carcano round Oswald used).

The bullet entered the thigh at right anges, but exited from the GI's foot, causing lots of damage along the way. Amputation was required.

I've fired round-nosed pistol bullets into tree stumps at right angles, to see them exit from the top of the stump in one case, and come back out and hit me in the leg (spent, fortunately), essentially reversing course in the hard wood.

Most folks who are not experienced will not credit the penetrating ability of this sort of round. We fired some standard 7.62 NATO (.308 Winchester) FMJ rounds through a sheet of 3/8" cold-rolled steel plate at about 100 yards. The rounds blew holes about 1/2" in diameter in same, with the bullet fragments chewing nasty holes in the railroad-tie backstop. This was standard military "ball" ammo, not armor-piercing.

[Brown]

Originally posted by boooeee
I don't have too much hope for it, considering it presents the now debunked police dictabelt recording as evidence for more than three shots being fired.The dictabelt part of the show was so bad it was almost funny. To someone who hasn't read up on the subject, of course, the report suggested that the dictabelt "proves" the existence of multiple shooters.

The part that got me howling was the business about the bell. Gee, how many earwitnesses at Dealey Plaza heard a bell? How many witnesses testified "Someone rang this bell, and then people started shooting?" The answer: none. Sounds that were known to occur include: crowd noise, revving engines, sirens and (oh, yeah) loud gunshots, but none of these is on the recording. Instead, we have a clear bell that no one heard.

Now here's the kicker: A video recording made in Dealey Plaza at 1:00 on November 22, 1964 recorded the sound of a bell! Well, knock me over with a feather. Someone tolled a bell at 1:00 on November 22, 1964, exactly one year after JFK was pronounced dead. How in the world does this memorial bell toll establish that someone rang a bell in the plaza at 12:30 one year earlier?

As for the skeletons business, this struck me as dishonest. If this demo was presented as an "honest" reconstruction, then it established that Kennedy could not have been hit by shots from the Depository or by shots from anywhere else. In other words, it established that all shots, not merely the single bullet trajectory, were impossible. (This is a common dishonesty in some recreations, namely to deliberately place the people in positions in which bullets supposedly have to zig-zag.)

I have great respect for Dr. Wecht. He is an outstanding medical examiner. But on this subject, he is simply unwilling to admit any error (so say other forensic pathologists). I wonder if Dr. Wecht has ever been asked: "Doctor, assume that a man is struck in the upper back by a full-metal-jacket bullet travelling in excess of the speed of sound and the bullet does not strike bone. What are the chances that that bullet will be stopped by the soft tissue?" If he has been asked this question, I wonder what his answer was.

[lifegazer]

I have a morbid interest in this, and after watching several documentaries and the film (JFK), of course, I thought that the only certainty was that there was a conspiracy, regardless of the fact that nobody was sure who was involved. There was even an official statement of "a probable conspiracy" back in the 70's, so I'm quite surprised to see everyone here brushing it under the rug. I haven't walked into a CIA social event, by any chance, have I? ;)

Anyway, I have a few questions...
1. What explanation do you have for the "kill shot" which clearly pushes Kennedy's head "back and to the left", to quote Costner, infering that the bullet entered front-right - on the grassy knoll?

2. The duration of the event was about 6 seconds. Oswald was a mediocre shot, apparently. The rifle he used was a crusty old bolt-action thing, and even experts struggled to get-off 3 shots in 6 seconds, without hardly a thought for the target. Plus, Oswald would have been shooting through the branches and leaves of trees, if memory serves me well. Was Oswald just in luck on that day?

3. Dozens of people, apparently, claim to have heard shots from the grassy knoll. Indeed, immediately after the Kennedy-car sped-off, lots of people began running up towards the knoll. Explanation?

I could probably think of many questions, but those three will do for now.

[Suezoled]

I dunno lifegazer. Why don't you look in your godly mirror and ask god?:p

[lifegazer]

Cute, Sue. *clap of thunder*

[Brown]

Originally posted by lifegazer
1. What explanation do you have for the "kill shot" which clearly pushes Kennedy's head "back and to the left", to quote Costner, infering that the bullet entered front-right - on the grassy knoll?Well, Kennedy was leaning to the left when he shot, and the fact that he would fall to the left is no surprise, especially with his wife pulling on him. The backwards motion of the head is consistent with known effects of severe gunshot.

For those who suggest that there may have been a shooter from the front, the questions are far more difficult: Why were there no wounds consistent with shots from the front? Why is it that all of the wounds have been conclusively shown to be from the rear? Why were no bullets or fragments found, except for those that were consistent with or that could be definitely traced to Oswald's rifle?

The key idea I'm trying to get across here is that many conspiracy theories have far more problems than the single shooter explanation.2. The duration of the event was about 6 seconds. Oswald was a mediocre shot, apparently. The rifle he used was a crusty old bolt-action thing, and even experts struggled to get-off 3 shots in 6 seconds, without hardly a thought for the target. Plus, Oswald would have been shooting through the branches and leaves of trees, if memory serves me well. Was Oswald just in luck on that day?It is a myth that Oswald was a poor shot. When push comes to shove, the Marines twice said that he was a good shot (and a very good shot by civilian standards). It is also a myth that he was shooting through trees the entire time. It is possible that his first shot was through a tree... and it was probably a miss. His second two shots were clear, with little lateral motion of the target. It is also a myth that no one has been able to recreate Oswald's performance. Many people tried and some have done better, scoring more hits in less time.

Once again, conspiracy theories tend to have far more problems than the single shooter explanation. If there were other shooters, where did their bullets go? Also, if it is asserted that Oswald had a poor vantage point, that problem is NOT solved by positing a shooter who is farther away with an even poorer vantage point.3. Dozens of people, apparently, claim to have heard shots from the grassy knoll. Indeed, immediately after the Kennedy-car sped-off, lots of people began running up towards the knoll. Explanation?The bullet fired from Oswald's weapon produces three distinct sounds. The first is the muzzle sound, which everyone associates with a shot. The second is the shock wave of the bullet, which travels faster than the speed of sound. The third is the sound of impact. The last of these three sounds like a shot, and is almost certainly responsible for many witnesses reports that the fatal shot "came from the limousine." It also may be responsible for the reports that the fatal shot SOUNDED like two separate shots, as some witnesses would have heard the impact first, then the muzzle blast.

Once again, the conspiracy theory of the knoll shooter creates problems. As I've said already, there is no ballistic or medical support for such a shooter. (The House Committee, even though officially concluding that there was a probable conspiracy, said that if there was a knoll shooter, he missed.) There are photographs of the knoll at the time the knoll shot was supposedly fired, but none shows a person there. Also, it has been established beyond doubt that at least one shot came from the rear. The folks who say they heard shots from the knoll do not say that the shots came from more than one direction. Thus, conspiracy theorists hold these witnesses up as reliable when they say that shots came from the knoll, but they say that these same witnesses are unreliable in reporting that ALL of the shots came from there.

[boooeee]

Originally Posted by Wert
Hm.

We are in a tv "sweeps" period I believe.
Wasn't Fox the folks that brought us the infamous "moon hoax" special?

Yeah, but this wasn't shown on the Fox network, right after "Malcolm in the Middle", it was shown on the Fox News Channel.

I didn't have a high opinion of Fox News prior to this, but I at least expected them to leave their conspiracy crap on their entertainment channel.

[SRW]

WHO SHOT PRESIDENT KENNEDY? PBS "Nova" with Walter Cronkite, forensic science examines the assassination. This show back in 88, I believe by Robert Richter, really destroys many of the myths. It was really well done and I wish it would get more air play.

[Bikewer]

A couple of things about some of these old (and much-discussed) items:

As noted, bullets do bizarre things in tissue. Especially military FMJ (full metal jacket) slugs, which can penetrate amazingly.

As a medic trainee, I was shown fun training films like "Massive Tissue Wounds". Yechhh... In one case, a WWII GI was shot through the thigh at right angles with a Japanese 6.5 mm round. (slightly higher velocity than the 6.5 Carcano)
The bullet entered at right angles to the upper thigh, but exited the poor guy's foot! Amputation was required.

Penetration of such rounds is amazing, and frequently the FMJ bullets will look almost pristine after recovery.

The house committee (including top-notch forensic scientists) who examined Kennedy's autopsy photos concluded that the entry wound to the head was the one in the rear, with the exit to the front. This can be determined by the spalling that occurs on the inside of the entrance wound.

The old "his head went backwards" thing is simply a function of the hydrostatic shock effect of the bullet. Bullets do not expend energy in a linear manner, at least in fluids. (like the human head)

Fire a round (even a .22) at a full soda can sometime, and watch it explode spectacularly. Often, it will jump several feet into the air. Add in the effects of spontaneous muscle contraction, nerve shock, etc, and the head is likely to jerk in any direction.

As mentioned above, acoustic effects in a space like the plaza area are very odd indeed. It's small wonder that some onlookers felt that sounds came from the grassy knoll.

[Aussie Thinker]

Probably another “nutty” conspiracy but something I heard a while back that made some sense.

I was hoping someone could give me more detail or shoot it down…

JFK was shot accidentally by the secret service man in the car behind !

The story was that secret service men used to carry AR15 (or the forerunner) Assault rifles and when Oswald fired at JFK (and hit him) the SS guy in the car behind grabbed his rifles and it went off sending more bullets into the Kennedy car and hitting Connolly (and Kennedy ?).

The credibility factor is reasonable as :

1. Good reason to hush up the SS actually shooting the man the are supposed to protect
2. Apparently Johnston ordered that SS men would no longer carry automatic weapons.

Has anyone heard this theory .. if so can you direct me to more info .. or debunk as more woo woo crap ?

[Ladewig]

Good News

Despite ABC's billing their Thursday night expose of the Kennedy assassination as "very controversial," their press release announced that all evidence points to Oswald being the only person firing a gun.

By viewing the assassination from multiple perspectives, it is an "inescapable conclusion" that the shots that killed Kennedy and wounded Texas Gov. John Connally came from Oswald's perch in the Dallas School Book Depository, said Tom Yellin, executive producer of the special. "It answers the simple questions about the trajectory," said Yellin, who ruled out any shots coming from the Grassy Knoll.

And here are words I never thought I'd hear from a network executive

Prominent conspiracy theories examined by the network did not stand up to scrutiny, Yellin said. "Stuff that people refer to as evidence is often conjecture," he said.

[Renfield]

Originally posted by Ladewig
Good News

Despite ABC's billing their Thursday night expose of the Kennedy assassination as "very controversial," their press release announced that all evidence points to Oswald being the only person firing a gun.



And here are words I never thought I'd hear from a network executive



? The major networks have always supported the WC.

[Brown]

Originally posted by Renfield
The major networks have always supported the WC. I'm not sure that's true. CBS has generally reported that the single-shooter explanation is best supported by the evidence. But CBS has also criticized the Warren Report. In a special aired a few years ago, Dan Rather summed it up by saying that the Warren Commission made some mistakes, but "it got a lot right."

The "mistakes" included failure to consider medical information, a badly performed autopsy, and an incorrect assessment of the timing of the shots.

Rather's summation was straightforward and professional. He said that all journalists would love to uncover the evidence that proved the existence of a conspiracy once and for all, but none has succeeded. As a matter of journalistic integrity, the single-shooter explanation has to be reported as the best explanation of the evidence.

PBS reports aired on "Frontline" and "Nova" also generally supported the single-shooter explanation, but found fault with some aspects of the Warren report.

ABC, for a while, had Geraldo Rivera as one of its reporters. Rivera's "reports" on the subject of the assassination were very pro-conspiracy.

[Renfield]

Originally posted by Brown
I'm not sure that's true. CBS has generally reported that the single-shooter explanation is best supported by the evidence. But CBS has also criticized the Warren Report. In a special aired a few years ago, Dan Rather summed it up by saying that the Warren Commission made some mistakes, but "it got a lot right."

The "mistakes" included failure to consider medical information, a badly performed autopsy, and an incorrect assessment of the timing of the shots.

Rather's summation was straightforward and professional. He said that all journalists would love to uncover the evidence that proved the existence of a conspiracy once and for all, but none has succeeded. As a matter of journalistic integrity, the single-shooter explanation has to be reported as the best explanation of the evidence.

PBS reports aired on "Frontline" and "Nova" also generally supported the single-shooter explanation, but found fault with some aspects of the Warren report.

ABC, for a while, had Geraldo Rivera as one of its reporters. Rivera's "reports" on the subject of the assassination were very pro-conspiracy.

The major networks have nearly always supported the conclusions of the warren report.

Happy?

[Hand Bent Spoon]

We're seeing this same phenomenon crop up around Princess Diana now. A famous, well-liked, young celebrity dies a pointless, needless death. People don't like the idea that a single deranged man could kill Kennedy, or a drunk driver driving at 100+ miles per hour could kill Diana. They like to think it isn't easy to kill these people. They like to think it's hard, because after all, these people are heroes to them, and it isn't easy to kill a hero.

So, they construct an elaborate myth (called by them a conspiracy) around the death of the individual: it took a vast conspiracy involving many elements of the government to kill Kennedy; it took careful planning over the course of years to plan and execute Princess Diana's demise, delayed ambulances and all. And that makes them feel better about the end of a great person. In a way, it makes them feel safer themselves. It takes the often random, meaninglessness out of death. Instead of easy, the taking of life becomes difficult, even elaborate. But never meaningless or pointless, as real death so often is.

[shemp]

I think Princess Diana shot JFK, and her death was a revenge killing.

[Jeff Corey]

Originally posted by lifegazer
Anyway, I have a few questions...
1. What explanation do you have for the "kill shot" which clearly pushes Kennedy's head "back and to the left", to quote Costner, infering that the bullet entered front-right - on the grassy knoll?

In "Penn and Teller's How To Play With Your Food", they wrap a melon in duct tape to approximate a human brain encased in a skull and shoot it with a high-powered rifle.
The material ejected from the exit wound caused the melon to be propelled toward the shooter.

[LTC8K6]

The Discovery Channel ran a show on the JFK deal last night.

A guy was easily able to get off 3 aimed shots in 8 seconds. He was easily ably to hit the moving target with Oswald's rifle all three times. In fact, he said the last shot was the easiest, in spite of the greater distance, because the angle was more comfortable to shoot from. They ran the scenario several times, and other than malfunctions of the old rifle, there were no problems making the shots.

Another guy was able to leave the sixth floor spot, hide the rifle, and walk to the second floor lunchroom in under a minute.

He had no trouble walking from Oswald's house to the spot where officer Tippet was shot in the required 15 minutes.

I found it funny when a longer route took the guy 16 minutes and 11 seconds. They instantly dismissed that route as if a minute one way or the other was relevant.

I question the use of absolute times for some events. They say officer Tippet was shot at 1:15, Oswald left his house at 1:00, an officer saw Oswald in the lunchroom within 90 seconds of the shooting of Kennedy, etc.

They use the times to show that Oswald only had 15 minutes to get to Tippet's murder scene.

How do they know these times to the minute? Everyone's watch/clock is a little different.

The show basically proved that Oswald could have done everything by himself, though.

I already believed that.

[a_unique_person]

From Leunig, some more proof of something fishy.

[RonSceptic]

In the Politics and Current events forum there is another thread devorted to this topic. Oiur old friend Rouse2 has returned to fly the flag for the conspiracy theorists (though I'm not sure which one!).

Check it out on....

Is Anyone Watching the JFK special.. (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=30827)

Could be a long winter folks......

[pgwenthold]

Originally posted by boooeee
I was wondering if anybody got a chance to see the Fox News special last night called "JFK: Case Not Closed".

From what I've been able to gather, it was an hour long special, hosted by Greta Van Susteren, which attempted to cast doubt on the lone gunman theory of the JFK assassination.

I've been able to find some info on it on the Fox News website, but I was hoping someone on the forum could provide more detail.

I don't have too much hope for it, considering it presents the now debunked police dictabelt recording as evidence for more than three shots being fired.


Yeah, they showed Bowles for about 3 seconds in the whole thing saying "The motorcycle with the open mike was 2 miles from the scene of the assassination when it occured. That has been known from the beginning."

And then they spent 15 minutes with the guys looking at the acoustic signals on a scope that "show patterns of gunfire." They never addressed the claim that the mike wasn't at the scene. Similarly, they never addressed Steve Barber's evidence that that time that they actually think the gunshots were heard are actually 1 minute _after_ the shooting occured.

This was the problem with the special. The name is apparently a reference to Posner's book. However, all they did was trot out the same old arguments that Posner and a ton of others had already addressed. The dictabelt argument is known to have huge holes in it, and it has been shown on multiple occasions that the positions of JFK and Connally at the time of the second shot were exactly as they need to be in order to account for the wounds that were observed. There are no curved pathways necessary (for example, did Wecht have JFK's seat elevated with respect to Connally's, as was the actual case?)

The claim about the bullets exploding is also not justified, as it has been demonstrated that the type of bullet that was used can explode, as was observed. This has been demonstrated empirically and is indisputable. So why did they bring it up?

No, all they did was trot out the same old boring arguments that have been thoroughly rebutted, including by Posner in Case Closed. So if they are going to refer to Posner's book in the title of their program, why not actually address the points Posner made? Why not rebut the rebuttle?

What a waste.

[Brown]

Originally posted by pgwenthold
There are no curved pathways necessary (for example, did Wecht have JFK's seat elevated with respect to Connally's, as was the actual case?)I do not believe he did, and I am not sure that he had Connally sitting in-board of Kennedy (many conspiracy theorists incorrectly position Connally directly in front of Kennedy, and at the same level).

Moreover, both skeletons were erect. Kennedy was known to be hunched, and Connally was known to be leaning to his left. This sort of incorrect positioning is a common error of conspiracy theorists.

By incorrectly (and in some cases, dishonestly) positioning the vicitms, some conspiracy theorists not only rule out the single-bullet scenario, but they also rule out other popular multi-shooter scenarios as well.

[Dragonrock]

Originally posted by Aussie Thinker
Probably another “nutty” conspiracy but something I heard a while back that made some sense.

I was hoping someone could give me more detail or shoot it down…

JFK was shot accidentally by the secret service man in the car behind !

The story was that secret service men used to carry AR15 (or the forerunner) Assault rifles and when Oswald fired at JFK (and hit him) the SS guy in the car behind grabbed his rifles and it went off sending more bullets into the Kennedy car and hitting Connolly (and Kennedy ?).

The credibility factor is reasonable as :

1. Good reason to hush up the SS actually shooting the man the are supposed to protect
2. Apparently Johnston ordered that SS men would no longer carry automatic weapons.

Has anyone heard this theory .. if so can you direct me to more info .. or debunk as more woo woo crap ?

This Link (http://star-spangled.narod.ru/60_nam_m16.htm) shows that the M16 did not enter service until 1968 and says the the predecesor to the M16/AR15 was the M14. The M14, nearly 4 feet long and weighing almost 9 pounds, was a little large to be used by a body guard. I'd say this is one of the sillier conspiracy theories.

[pgwenthold]

Originally posted by Brown
I do not believe he did, and I am not sure that he had Connally sitting in-board of Kennedy (many conspiracy theorists incorrectly position Connally directly in front of Kennedy, and at the same level).

Moreover, both skeletons were erect. Kennedy was known to be hunched, and Connally was known to be leaning to his left.


And turning toward the right when he was hit. Makes sense. Look behind you. Notice that your body leans left as your head turns right.

Connally said that he turned to the right when he heard the first shot. According to modern timelines, he was hit with the second shot, about 4 seconds later.

Yet, conspiracy people show him sitting facing forward when they do their "magic bullet" dance. Get real. Seriously. They need to get realistic. All else is straw.


This sort of incorrect positioning is a common error of conspiracy theorists.


I realize that and all, but didn't want to accuse Wecht of doing so without being certain. However, given that folks who have taken pains to put the participants into their actual positions have shown that it lines up pretty well (but only if the shot comes from the 6th floor window*), then anyone who is finding a bad path is likely using an incorrect seating arrangement, unless they specify why they think the other scenerios were mistaken.



*The Failure Associates Analysis group did a great exercise. They asked "How could a single bullet account for all the injuries?" The answer? It could only happen if the shot occurred at about Z-223 (the JFK lapel flap/Connally hat-tilt frame) and only if the shot came from the vicinity of the end window on the 6th floor).

[boooeee]

There's a lovely article on cnn.com this morning. This should really clear things up:

All right, who really killed JFK? (http://www.cnn.com/2003/SHOWBIZ/books/11/20/review.jfk.books/index.html)

From the article (quoting David Wrone, author of a new conspiracy book)
"The evidence on frames 337 and 338 of the Zapruder film could alter the course of American history. ... In fine color detail these two frames clearly show the back of President Kennedy's head undamaged, with his clothing intact and unbloodied. It proves that the shot that caused the president's massive head wound came from the front and that there was no shot in the back of the head, thus affirming two or more assassins conspired to kill him."
Frames 337 and 338 occur after the "kill" shot, when Kennedy's head kind of falls in Jackie's lap. So, his argument is that because the back of JFK's head is unbloodied, the shot must have come from the front. Does this guy know anything about gunshot wounds? I sure don't, but I do know that entrance wounds are small, and exit wounds are bloody and messy. Would it have killed him to check this basic fact before writing a 400 page book?

CNN's characterization of his research is a bit more charitable:
Wrone writes carefully, building his analysis brick by brick. His prose is academic, which may be off-putting to the casual reader. But his research is quite thorough and his conclusions are compelling. The author explores many issues related to the film, including its authenticity.

[pgwenthold]

Originally posted by boooeee
"The evidence on frames 337 and 338 of the Zapruder film could alter the course of American history. ... In fine color detail these two frames clearly show the back of President Kennedy's head undamaged, with his clothing intact and unbloodied. It proves that the shot that caused the president's massive head wound came from the front and that there was no shot in the back of the head, thus affirming two or more assassins conspired to kill him."

Oh this is rich. Not a few conspiratorialists have rested their entire case on the autopsy sketches that give the impression that much of the back of Kennedy's head is blown out. Of course, the actual autopsy report and the photographs clearly contradict this, but they cling to the one hope. Thus, if the back of the head is blown away, it proves that the shot came from the front.

And it would, if it were the case. However, it is trivially obvious from the Z film that it is the front of the head that is blown out, and that assessment is exactly what is reported in the official autopsy report and pictures. Conspiracy nuts have tried to make the case that it was the back of the head blown out, because they know they need it to be true if there was a shot from the front.

Until this moron comes along and changes all the ballistics. Given the overwhelming case that the front of the head is blown out, he changes his tune: oh, that actually shows that the shot came from the _front,_, not the back. Yeah, right.

Of course, there is one great part about it. By arguing that the back of the head is intact, he opposes most conspiracy folk.

[Brown]

Originally posted by boooeee
Does this guy know anything about gunshot wounds? Apparently not. And yet, I find it hard to believe that this author would make such a foolish error. Perhaps he has some additional explanation, which was not reported in the article. On the other hand, maybe he fell into a trap that a lot of buffs fell into, namely, he made assumptions without doing the proper research. If this is the case, it would be a lot of fun to listen in on a phone call in which a pathologist sets Mr. Wrone straight. Or perhaps someone could send him the JAMA issue that discusses the wounds.Originally posted by pgwenthold
By arguing that the back of the head is intact, he opposes most conspiracy folk. This was my immediate reaction, too. One wonders whether the conspiracy folks will embrace his conclusion or say "Stay off our side!" My guess is that the former is more likely to occur. Many theorists don't seem to be too bothered by the fact that many of their theories don't work or that they are in conflict with one another, as long as the "correct" pro-conspiracy conclusion is reached.

[Brown]

One more thing:

When are people going to start pronouncing Zapruder's name correctly?

In the famous on-air interview right after the assassination, Zapruder pronounces his own name with an accent on the FIRST syllable: ZAP-ruder. (The announcer, unfamiliar with the name, calls him ZAP-pu-da or something like that.)

[pgwenthold]

Originally posted by Brown
Apparently not. And yet, I find it hard to believe that this author would make such a foolish error. Perhaps he has some additional explanation, which was not reported in the article. On the other hand, maybe he fell into a trap that a lot of buffs fell into, namely, he made assumptions without doing the proper research. If this is the case, it would be a lot of fun to listen in on a phone call in which a pathologist sets Mr. Wrone straight. Or perhaps someone could send him the JAMA issue that discusses the wounds.This was my immediate reaction, too. One wonders whether the conspiracy folks will embrace his conclusion or say "Stay off our side!" My guess is that the former is more likely to occur. Many theorists don't seem to be too bothered by the fact that many of their theories don't work or that they are in conflict with one another, as long as the "correct" pro-conspiracy conclusion is reached.

The best example of this is the witness testimony of shots from the grassy knoll. Conspiracy buffs love to jump all over this (they tend to overstate the actual number, but that isn't important). As such, they use it as evidence as shots coming from somewhere besides the SBD. However, given that they have to account for the shot in the back, any scenerio with a knoll shooter must have someone from behind, which can be, inter alia, the SBD.

But if you look at the testimony from those who thought there were shots from the grassy knoll, most of them will tell you that _all_ the shots came from that area. Only something like 5 out of 178 witnesses thought the shots came from more than one place. IOW, >95% of the witnesses thought the shots came from a single location (including at least 80% of those who thought they came from the grassy knoll). Such testimony totally contradicts the possibility of a grassy knoll shooter in addition to another.

So they are left with the odd position. Base the case on the testimony of 5 witnesses, who are contradicted by 173, or claim that the folks who heard the shots are not able to actually tell if they all came from the same spot or not. But in that case, they basically are saying that the witnesses can't tell where the shots are coming from, which destroys their entire basis!

No, they jump on _any_ testimony that contradicts the WC report, despite the fact that the exact same testimony contradicts their inescapable claims of more than one shooter.

[Brown]

Originally posted by pgwenthold
So they are left with the odd position. Great point. It amplifies what I said earlier, but also stresses a very important point. Namely: The vast majority of conspiracy theorists are far more guilty of using "selective evidence" than the Warren Commission ever was.

[kookbreaker]

Originally posted by Jeff Corey

In "Penn and Teller's How To Play With Your Food", they wrap a melon in duct tape to approximate a human brain encased in a skull and shoot it with a high-powered rifle.
The material ejected from the exit wound caused the melon to be propelled toward the shooter.

"It is considered bad taste to put second melon with a pillbox hat next to the first melon"

[Luke T.]

Originally posted by lifegazer

3. Dozens of people, apparently, claim to have heard shots from the grassy knoll. Indeed, immediately after the Kennedy-car sped-off, lots of people began running up towards the knoll. Explanation?


The grassy knoll had a fairly solid wood fence. Perhaps an echo? There is also a concrete overpass near the grassy knoll. Another echo source?

Ears play tricks on you as well as your eyes. Something as sudden and unexpected as gunshots will be hard to locationally determine. I suppose it all depends which way your head is pointing, too.

Having been around a lot of weapons as they were fired, I can tell you the same gun can sound very different depending on where you are standing.

[UnrepentantSinner]

The ABC special section has the newly animated version of the Zapruder Film. If you missed the special, at least check out the short segments on this page:
http://abcnews.go.com/jfk_conspiracy/jfk_conspiracy_index.html

The animation seems a tad weird not seeing Jackie or Nellie Connally on the car, but I've caught new details in the Zapruder film that I'd missed previously watching it.

[SRW]

Originally posted by UnrepentantSinner
The ABC special section has the newly animated version of the Zapruder Film. If you missed the special, at least check out the short segments on this page:
http://abcnews.go.com/jfk_conspiracy/jfk_conspiracy_index.html

The animation seems a tad weird not seeing Jackie or Nellie Connally on the car, but I've caught new details in the Zapruder film that I'd missed previously watching it.

I was on the History Channel Forum and they were criticizing the ABC show because it was one sided. I liked it because it stuck to facts and did not go into any speculation.

[UnrepentantSinner]

Originally posted by SRW
I was on the History Channel Forum and they were criticizing the ABC show because it was one sided. I liked it because it stuck to facts and did not go into any speculation.

How funny. That's like people that bitch about Talk.Origins because it gives the weight of evidence to facts and reality and stuff and not any old dingleberry some one tugged out of their pooper.

[pgwenthold]

Originally posted by SRW


I was on the History Channel Forum and they were criticizing the ABC show because it was one sided. I liked it because it stuck to facts and did not go into any speculation.

OK, it was one-sided. Two things:

1) How many complained after the "Case Not Closed" show on Fox that was also very one-sided? Or was that ok?

2) If they have a complaint about what was said, bring it up? What is wrong with the analysis that says that JFK and Connally were lined up exactly as they should be for the single bullet to hit them both? What is wrong with the analysis that showed officer McLain 170 feet from where he was required to be for the acoustic analysis to show 4 shots? What part of Oliver Stone's movie was actually not fiction?

The thing that is driving these people up the wall is that they are taking actually conspiracy objections and showing that they don't hold up.

If you were to watch Case Not Closed, you might think there was evidence for the conspiracy. However, if you watched the ABC special, it basically covered all the points brought forth in Case Not Closed. Oddly, though, none of the stuff in the ABC special is all that new. It has all been well known since at least the early 90s (Posner covered it all in his book). Sure, there are more people doing the work now, and they are using even more sophisticated methods, but the information is the same. But apparently the people at Fox haven't read anything beyond the Warren report...

[Wolverine]

Originally posted by SRW
I was on the History Channel Forum and they were criticizing the ABC show because it was one sided. I liked it because it stuck to facts and did not go into any speculation.


I had posted a thread on THC forum asking why they pander to paranormal believers and conspiracy theorists, and criticized them for airing Nigel Turner's The Men Who Killed Kennedy, and they deleted my thread two days after I posted it.

:a2:

Since, I have sent an email to AETN asking why. Wonder if I'll get any response. Sure doesn't make me want to flip on History Channel anymore.

[SteveGrenard]

I finally had a chance to see (on the History Channel) the segments on the alleged involvement of the power brokers in Austin and Dallas (Murtchison, Billy Sol Estes, Bobby Baker, Wallace et al and inevitably LBJ) and the tie-in to New Orleans (anyone remember Jim Garrison?Was he mentioned? Don't think so.) and Oswald's activities there, Clay Shaw, David Ferry and now a new player, Oswald's mistress, a cancer researcher working for Ochsner who was designing a cancer bio-weapon to use on Castro!

I think I got most of it in in the above paragraph. What do others think of this convoluted history?

Wolverine, why did you criticize H-Channel for airing this? I think the announcer was pretty careful about casting the Austin/New Orleans connections in a speculative, theoretical light but how could they ignore the lawyer and the cancer researcher who after 40 years were finally willing to say something? I seem to recall hearing something about this material being shown in England a while ago but that it was suppressed here until now. Anyone can confirm this?

Oswald obviously did have a life and was involved with "people" such as Ferry and the cancer researcher and the Texas contingent existed and did, in theory, have reason to be paranoid of JFK. Didn't Billy Sol get off with a slap on the wrist for selling futures on vegetable or cottn seed oil or some such stuff which he didn't actually have?

Wouldnt LBJ's connection to Billy Sol cause JFK to chop him from the ticket in '64?

[pgwenthold]

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
Oswald obviously did have a life and was involved with "people" such as Ferry

Well, Oswald did have a life, but to suggest that he was "obviously" involved with people like Ferry is a huge stretch. There are some who claim he was, but it is far from obvious.

[SteveGrenard]

Agreed. We only have a third party, the cancer researcher (who claims she was having an affair with Oswald) who after 40 years says she was introduced to Ferry by LHO. Since she was married with children and is now probably a grandmother, she had a lot to loose by coming forward and seemed pretty credible to me. But yes, its only testimony.

I don't know how badly someone like her would want to crave some attention but this has got to be a pretty extreme case if she was flat out lying.

[pgwenthold]

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
Agreed. We only have a third party, the cancer researcher (who claims she was having an affair with Oswald) who after 40 years says she was introduced to Ferry by LHO. Since she was married with children and is now probably a grandmother, she had a lot to lose by coming forward and seemed pretty credible to me. But yes, its only testimony.


"A lot to lose"? Seriously?

Come on, she claimed to have an affair with celebrity (albeit notorious). The fact that she was a cancer researcher is irrelevent.

Have we seen anyone cross examine her to see if anything she can provide is verifiable? Not yet, I doubt.

Sometimes when people claim to have had affairs with celebrities, they are telling the truth. But sometimes they aren't. Credibility isn't established by acting sincere, but by having reliable information.

[Mercutio]

Boston news last night (don't know if it was a national feed) had a woman who, a few years back while cleaning out her mother's house, found a description of the assassination written on the very day it happened, by a woman (her mother) who was close enough to see the effects of the shots. It is several pages long, and quite detailed, and (this was emphasized by the reporters) not influenced by conspiracy theories, news stories, or the passage of time (again, it was written on the day of the assassination). She specifically writes of hearing three shots only. I'll try to find a link if one exists.

[pgwenthold]

Originally posted by Mercutio
Boston news last night (don't know if it was a national feed) had a woman who, a few years back while cleaning out her mother's house, found a description of the assassination written on the very day it happened, by a woman (her mother) who was close enough to see the effects of the shots. It is several pages long, and quite detailed, and (this was emphasized by the reporters) not influenced by conspiracy theories, news stories, or the passage of time (again, it was written on the day of the assassination). She specifically writes of hearing three shots only.

Not surprising. Most of the people there reported hearing three shots.

[SteveGrenard]

I don't think we can completely ignore the cancer researcher (Judyth Baker) just yet.

Here is questionning, highly skeptical website including the opening blurb:

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

Lee Oswald's Girlfriend in New Orleans? Secret CIA Bioweapons Researcher?
Should We Believe Judyth Baker?

If Judyth Vary Baker is telling the truth, it will change the way we think about the Kennedy assassination. Judyth offers an account that integrates much that has been written about the assassination into a more or less coherent whole, and puts myriad facts about the assassination in an entirely new light. She has recently been in the Netherlands, getting some attention in the Dutch media, and has opened a museum dedicated to telling her story. Her supporters have promised a book. She may turn into someone important on the JFK assassination scene

[pgwenthold]

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
I don't think we can completely ignore the cancer researcher (Judyth Baker) just yet.



I'm not ignoring her. I am saying that we should not accept her testimony yet.

Despite the lack of any solid evidence of any relationship between Ferrie and Oswald, despite 40 years of diligent searching, we are all supposed to accept this newly found testimony to that fact?

I suppose someone is claiming we have found WMD in Iraq, too?

Her claims need to be verified before we should accept them.

[Wolverine]

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
Wolverine, why did you criticize H-Channel for airing this?

Simple. TMWKK = junk history.

It has no place being aired beside the usual quality programs THC offers.

[SRW]

Originally posted by pgwenthold


OK, it was one-sided. Two things:

1) How many complained after the "Case Not Closed" show on Fox that was also very one-sided? Or was that ok?



This sums up all the responses I got, the problem with the history channel was that they spent too much time on the wrong conspiracy's and not the one that the writer likes. It is a buffet of conspiracy's, and not only that they can take bits of one and mesh is with another, even if the two are contradictory. Like the Z. film shows A so A is true, however because it shows B it must have been altered.

[SteveGrenard]

Simple. TMWKK = junk history.

It has no place being aired beside the usual quality programs THC offers.---Wolverine


What does TMWKK mean? Do you think that the American TV audience does not have a right to have seen this material?

On Weds, 11/19 (TV Section) in the NY post, the History Channel answered critics, the most vocal of which were the LBJ Foundation and Jack Valenti, President of the MPAA and a former LBJ staffer.

The History channel points out, as I suspected, that the material aired in these programs has aired before on cable TV . I have also confirmed that much of it has been aired in Europe and the UK years ago but never was shown in the U.S. which, whether it is right or wrong, should have us here in the U.S.A. more than a little concerned given our allegedly free press and constitutional rights to free speech here etc etc

Lynn Gardner, a spokesperson for the History Channel said also that "The Guilty Men" was based on a book "Blood, Money and Power: How L.B.J. Killed J.F.K." by Bart McClellan.

The history channel did not editorialize in favor of the theories offered but went to great lengths (their narrator said this before, during breaks and afterwards) to say that they were just that, theories and that they (The H-Channel) were not in any way saying they were correct. The Channel was also quoted as saying "We are, however, presenting a point of view that has been meticulously researched."

So there was nothing new here except for the fact that millions of Americans are now being shown this for the first time.

I therefore applaud the Channel for having the guts to take this opportunity, finally, after many years (that this information has been out there in the book and on overseas TV) to allow the American people to see it.

[jimmygun]

Originally posted by UnrepentantSinner
The ABC special section has the newly animated version of the Zapruder Film. If you missed the special, at least check out the short segments on this page:
http://abcnews.go.com/jfk_conspirac...racy_index.html

The animation seems a tad weird not seeing Jackie or Nellie Connally on the car, but I've caught new details in the Zapruder film that I'd missed previously watching it.

I saw the animated film and how it was superimposed by computer on the Zapruder film. I told my wife that there was another nail in the coffin of the conspiracy nuts but in Saturdays paper was a blurb from James Fetzer, author of 'Assassination Science: Experts Speak Out on the Death of JFK.'

Fetzer asserts that the Kennedy X-rays and the film of the assassination by bystander Abraham Zapruder were fabricated and that there were actually six or so people firing at the president that day.

Not even the dry land of facts can stop this ship of fools and their conspiracy "theories". Evidence proves you wrong? Simply add the evidence to the conspiracy!

[Hannibal]

BBC2 had a documentary on the JFK assasination last night. It had reconstructions, frame by frames, analysis, backgrounds of the players and overviews of the entire thing.

To be honest, looking at the evidence OBJECTIVELY (note the key word here folks) there is abolutely NO WAY that anyone else apart from LHO could have shot JFK. The evidence is not just plausible it is overwhelming.

Any other theories are tripe with no evidence at all. the "fourth shot" was proved bunk, as was the Stone film and the conclusions it reached. It was all in all a very carefully constructed programme that impressed me with its evidence, level handedness and conclusions.

It didn't cover the "Red Dwarf" conspiracy though!:)

[fsol]

It was the same show as the ABC one as far as I can tell. It didn't cover the Illuminatus Trilogy's take on the assasination either. ;)

[pgwenthold]

Originally posted by jimmygun
I saw the animated film and how it was superimposed by computer on the Zapruder film. I told my wife that there was another nail in the coffin of the conspiracy nuts but in Saturdays paper was a blurb from James Fetzer, author of 'Assassination Science: Experts Speak Out on the Death of JFK.'

Fetzer asserts that the Kennedy X-rays and the film of the assassination by bystander Abraham Zapruder were fabricated and that there were actually six or so people firing at the president that day.


Of course they have to claim that, because it has become convincingly clear that the Z-film shows absolutely no indication of a second shooter and that it completely contradicts everything said by the conspiracy people. Thus, they now have to assert that it has been doctored.

Just as how they have to assert that the autopsy photographs have been doctored, because, you know, they don't agree with the examiner's rough sketches (although they do agree with the details of the examiner's report).

It's funny, though, how in the past people have relied on the Z-film to prove conspiracy. "Back and to the left. Back and to the left." Now? Since the Z-film doesn't show conspiracy, and we know there was a conspiracy, then the film must be a fake.

[Luke T.]

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
I finally had a chance to see (on the History Channel) the segments on the alleged involvement of the power brokers in Austin and Dallas (Murtchison, Billy Sol Estes, Bobby Baker, Wallace et al and inevitably LBJ) and the tie-in to New Orleans (anyone remember Jim Garrison?Was he mentioned? Don't think so.) and Oswald's activities there, Clay Shaw, David Ferry and now a new player, Oswald's mistress, a cancer researcher working for Ochsner who was designing a cancer bio-weapon to use on Castro!

I think I got most of it in in the above paragraph. What do others think of this convoluted history?

Wolverine, why did you criticize H-Channel for airing this? I think the announcer was pretty careful about casting the Austin/New Orleans connections in a speculative, theoretical light but how could they ignore the lawyer and the cancer researcher who after 40 years were finally willing to say something? I seem to recall hearing something about this material being shown in England a while ago but that it was suppressed here until now. Anyone can confirm this?

Oswald obviously did have a life and was involved with "people" such as Ferry and the cancer researcher and the Texas contingent existed and did, in theory, have reason to be paranoid of JFK. Didn't Billy Sol get off with a slap on the wrist for selling futures on vegetable or cottn seed oil or some such stuff which he didn't actually have?

Wouldnt LBJ's connection to Billy Sol cause JFK to chop him from the ticket in '64?

Steve. Did you totally buy into the "Oswald's mistress" thing, or what? BWAHAHAHAHA!

Yeah. She and Oswald mixing cancer shakes in the kitchen at what place was it? A candy store or something? I mean, really! Come on!

Nobody ever saw them together? Did you notice how careful she was to ensure her story lined up so that they were never seen together except by "co-conspirators" or the lady whose house she lived in who is probably long dead?

She is a sad, pathetic woman with no life.

How come the producers of the show did not have one validating fact to her story? Why didn't they have her whip up a cancer shake to show she knew how? That was her claim. She and Oswald, making cancer in the blender in the kitchen to be used to kill Castro.

Be serious!

What a loser.

[pgwenthold]

Originally posted by Luke T.

How come the producers of the show did not have one validating fact to her story? Why didn't they have her whip up a cancer shake to show she knew how? That was her claim. She and Oswald, making cancer in the blender in the kitchen to be used to kill Castro.


I like the part about how she was the one who introduced Dr Suess to the word "nerd."