IS anyone watching the JFK special on the History Channel?

[Malachi151]

Is anyone watching The Men Who Killed Kennedy?

This is amazing, they are basically saying point blank that Lee Harvy Oswald was setup from the beginning, that he was involved in a plot to kill Castro via biological weapons, he was an agent that then infiltrated a group that was planning to kill JFK, and that he was the scape goat for a Lyndon Johnson backed assissnation of JFK.

Is anyone else watching this?

[corplinx]

Originally posted by Malachi151
Is anyone watching The Men Who Killed Kennedy?

This is amazing, they are basically saying point blank that Lee Harvy Oswald was setup from the beginning, that he was involved in a plot to kill Castro via biological weapons, he was an agent that then infiltrated a group that was planning to kill JFK, and that he was the scape goat for a Lyndon Johnson backed assissnation of JFK.

Is anyone else watching this?

Did you even read this link the last time I posted it? (http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm)

[BTox]

Originally posted by Malachi151
Is anyone watching The Men Who Killed Kennedy?

This is amazing, they are basically saying point blank that Lee Harvy Oswald was setup from the beginning, that he was involved in a plot to kill Castro via biological weapons, he was an agent that then infiltrated a group that was planning to kill JFK, and that he was the scape goat for a Lyndon Johnson backed assissnation of JFK.

Is anyone else watching this?

I'm watching the moon hoax show again. It's a much more convincing conspiracy...

[Ranb]

It's TV. If you have a story about a former marine who hated the the establishment and bought a cheap surplus rifle to settle things his own way, it would not be much of a story.

What makes for better ratings? A lone nut shooting the Prez from 265 feet away as he slowly made his way down Elm street directly in front of the warehouse? Or a large squad of hitmen perched behind a fence, among the secret service, in the sewer and who knows where else waiting to pump the President full of lead? Oh, and don't forget, they have to kill the patsy, arrange for the patsy's killer to die in prison, and kill everyone else who even thought it was a conspiracy (except for the conspiracy theory writers).

I think the Fox channel Moon Hoax show is a better laugh than this crap.

Ranb

[subgenius]

"The lead flew like a shower
at 11 miles an hour."--Was (Not Was)

[subgenius]

Originally posted by Ranb
It's TV. If you have a story about a former marine who hated the the establishment and bought a cheap surplus rifle to settle things his own way, it would not be much of a story.

What makes for better ratings? A lone nut shooting the Prez from 265 feet away as he slowly made his way down Elm street directly in front of the warehouse? Or a large squad of hitmen perched behind a fence, among the secret service, in the sewer and who knows where else waiting to pump the President full of lead? Oh, and don't forget, they have to kill the patsy, arrange for the patsy's killer to die in prison, and kill everyone else who even thought it was a conspiracy (except for the conspiracy theory writers).

I think the Fox channel Moon Hoax show is a better laugh than this crap.

Ranb
One of the reasons for believing in a conspiracy is the understandable disbelief that a loser, like Lee Harvey O, or James Earl Ray, could end the life of a great man.
The eternal, and fruitless, search for greater meaning in senseless death.

"Lee Harvey O didn't have a daddy,
He never caught a break he never drove a Caddy.
Joined the Marines to learn a skill,
And that he did, he learned how to kill."--Was (Not Was).

[subgenius]

In Miami, Florida, on February 15, 1933, Giuseppe Zangara, an unemployed bricklayer from Italy, fired five pistol shots at the back of President-elect FDR’s head from only 25 feet away.
While all five rounds missed their target, one of them found Mayor Anton Cermak of Chicago, who died of his wound three weeks later. A scant two weeks after that, Zangara was executed in the electric chair. It was the swiftest legal execution in twentieth-century American history.
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0897334957/inktomi-bkasin-20/ref%3Dnosim/102-2837584-8966504

Fascinating story. Especially the part about him being executed less than five weeks after the crime.
It was supposed to be four weeks, but he had a good lawyer. (Apologies to Woody Allen)

[Renfield]

I don't know. LBJ never believed the WC report. And he was kinda in a position to know, wasn't he, having put it together in the first place?

Just a thought.

http://www.history-matters.com/siteguide/siteguide_relatedsites.htm

[Malachi151]

I asked if anyone saw the information. If you didn't see it, then there is no sense in commenting. You will be hearing more about this though I can guarnetee you, it was a very thorough piece, with major implications.

[no one in particular]

Originally posted by Malachi151
If you didn't see it, then there is no sense in commenting. Consider this my non-comment. Originally posted by Malachi151

You will be hearing more about this though I can guarnetee you, it was a very thorough piece, with major implications. Ugh, that poster previously known as Traveler, where is he when you need him?

[Cain]

An ABC special using bullet-time CGI supposedly proves once and for all that Oswald acted alone:

Quote from Plastic.com

Jennings called the new technology "shocking in many respects and yet... clarifying, in every sense, what really happened... Unless you are an unrequited conspiracy theorist, we think we will prove to you that Oswald acted alone."

This stuff needs to die already.

[Brown]

We've talked about this so-called documentary before. It has no business being on the "History" channel.

There are dozens of howling errors and absurdities in the series.

I recently saw Greta Van Susteren's "Case Not Closed" special on Fox "News." This show, which tended toward conspiracy, included several howlers as well, presented as "fact."

[Luke T.]

Originally posted by Malachi151
I asked if anyone saw the information. If you didn't see it, then there is no sense in commenting. You will be hearing more about this though I can guarnetee you, it was a very thorough piece, with major implications.

Malachi, did you notice how grainy and old the documentary was? I guess people are reacting to you the way they are because we have probably all seen it 10 or 12 times. It is very old news, and still just as much rubbish as when it first aired.

JFK's assassination has been discussed on here quite a bit in the past. I guess we burned out on the topic. I remember someone once posted some excellent links to sites that argued pro-conspiracy, and others that argued con-conspiracy. I long ago deleted them from my Favorites, but maybe someone else still has them.

[RonSceptic]

Originally posted by Malachi151
You will be hearing more about this though I can guarnetee you, it was a very thorough piece, with major implications.

The major implication being that some conspiracuy nut will write yet another book of half baked suppositions with zip evidence.

Oswald pulled the trigger. No doubt about it. It was an oportunist act by a demented wierdo who had fired his rifle at a senior figure at least once before. Sad but true.

Any doubts, pick up a copy of Case Closed by Posner.

[Luke T.]

This is sort like if someone posted on here "Hey, are you guys watching the documentary on the Learning Channel right now? They are basically saying the government has concealed the fact a flying saucer crashed someplace in New Mexico back in 1947. You will be hearing more about this though I can guarantee you, it was a very thorough piece, with major implications."

[pgwenthold]

Originally posted by Brown
We've talked about this so-called documentary before. It has no business being on the "History" channel.

There are dozens of howling errors and absurdities in the series.

I recently saw Greta Van Susteren's "Case Not Closed" special on Fox "News." This show, which tended toward conspiracy, included several howlers as well, presented as "fact."

You know, the stupid thing about Case Not Closed is that apparently the title is a reference to the Posner book Case Closed, as if they have discovered something new to call Posner into question. Yet, all they did was to trot out old Warren Report and House Select Committee on Assassination claims and try to debunk them, despite the fact that few lone gunman advocates, including Posner, actually accept them.

For example, they trotted out the "dictabelt" evidence, and got really no more in-depth than had been done at the HSCA hearings. Even aside from the fact that they totally dismiss the guy from the Dallas police department who says that the officer in question was not even in Daly Plaza, Posner addresses their claims in his book. Why didn't they rebut his rebuttal?

Similarly, both Posner and the Analysis Group (I don't recall their official name) have both shown that the seating arrangement of Kennedy and Connally at the time of the second shot was perfectly consistent with what would be needed to account for all the wounds, they still trotted out the old Cyril Wecht claim about the "magic bullet." Of course it's not clear if Wecht was relying on the more modern accepted timeline or the old Warren timeline, which has long been dismissed as inconsistent with the Z-film (for example, the timing of the second shot is now established by Connaly's "lapel flip" and "hat tilt," which the WC had not been able to discern).

What a bunch of crap. Posner isn't perfect, but jeez, he could have torn those claims to tiny little shreds without even trying.

[corplinx]

Greta Van Sustern does us a disservice, I consider the case closed (http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm)

[Aoidoi]

It's probably been a year since I saw it, so my recollection might be a bit hazy. But IIRC, there were like 5 hour long episodes of The Men Who Killed Kennedy. Each one had a different theory on the crime. Each was roughly as pursuasive as the others. Given their largely mutually exclusive nature (unless people were simultaneously shooting from multiple locations) I found that somewhat interesting.

After reading up on it I've come to believe that the lone gunman theory is the most believable and supported of the theories. My only nagging doubt is why Ruby (sp?) killed Oswald (his motivations never really made sense to me). But a single question hardly a conspiracy makes.

I am, however, completely unsurprised that you believe it was a conspiracy, Malachi.

[Luke T.]

Originally posted by Aoidoi
My only nagging doubt is why Ruby (sp?) killed Oswald (his motivations never really made sense to me).

Could be Ruby had Mary Sarratt in mind. She was hanged as a co-conspirator of Lincoln's assassination even though she probably knew nothing about it. She just happened to run the boarding house where the conspirators met. Maybe Oswald used to brag to Ruby he was gonna shoot Kennedy, and Ruby worried someone with as whacked out a personality as Oswald would tell the feds Ruby was in on it, or at least knew about it.

Just as plausible as any other theories, I guess.

[Mike B.]

Originally posted by Cain
An ABC special using bullet-time CGI supposedly proves once and for all that Oswald acted alone:

Quote from Plastic.com



This stuff needs to die already.

Do you have a link to the specific article?

Thanks.

[Charles Livingston]

Originally posted by Luke T.


Could be Ruby had Mary Sarratt in mind. She was hanged as a co-conspirator of Lincoln's assassination even though she probably knew nothing about it. She just happened to run the boarding house where the conspirators met. Maybe Oswald used to brag to Ruby he was gonna shoot Kennedy, and Ruby worried someone with as whacked out a personality as Oswald would tell the feds Ruby was in on it, or at least knew about it.

Just as plausible as any other theories, I guess.

I dont really understand this, didnt he get in almost as much trouble by killing Oswald? I mean, he was guaranteed to get in trouble by killing oswald on tape, whereas they would have to prove he was involved in the conspiracy to at least some degree.
NOw, I am not saying there was a conspiracy, I really dont know much about the deal, but why did ruby shoot oswald?

Corplinx, thanks for the link, interesting.

[Luke T.]

Originally posted by Charles Livingston


I dont really understand this, didnt he get in almost as much trouble by killing Oswald? I mean, he was guaranteed to get in trouble by killing oswald on tape, whereas they would have to prove he was involved in the conspiracy to at least some degree.
NOw, I am not saying there was a conspiracy, I really dont know much about the deal, but why did ruby shoot oswald?

Corplinx, thanks for the link, interesting.

Hey, I totally pulled that theory out of thin air. File it under the Wild-Ass Theory category. :D

I imagine Ruby thought he would be considered a hero for offing the man who shot JFK.

edited to add: The sentence for shooting an assassin is probably not as great as the sentence for being thought to be involved in the death of the President.

[Charles Livingston]

From the link Corplinx gave, it said Ruby claimed he did it to spare Jackie from having to testify at Oswald's murder trial, so kind of the hero thing you were alluding too. That may seem like a pretty ridiculous sacrifice, but the link (I did not read it all) seems to suggest that his mental state wasnt that good. Seems plausible to me.

[Rouser2]

Originally posted by corplinx


Did you even read this link the last time I posted it? (http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm)


A link to the well known McAdams Garbage Dump.

[Rouser2]

Originally posted by Brown
We've talked about this so-called documentary before. It has no business being on the "History" channel.

There are dozens of howling errors and absurdities in the series.

I recently saw Greta Van Susteren's "Case Not Closed" special on Fox "News." This show, which tended toward conspiracy, included several howlers as well, presented as "fact."

Funny, you don't bother to even name one such "howler". What a cadre of nitwits passing as "skeptics" on this board.

-- Rouser

[Rouser2]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by RonSceptic
[B]

>>The major implication being that some conspiracuy nut will write yet another book of half baked suppositions with zip evidence.

>>Oswald pulled the trigger. No doubt about it.

How do you know that?


>> It was an oportunist act by a demented wierdo who had fired his rifle at a senior figure at least once before. Sad but true.


How do you know that?

>>Any doubts, pick up a copy of Case Closed by Posner.

Why?


-- Rouser

[Rouser2]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by pgwenthold
[B]

>>...Similarly, both Posner and the Analysis Group (I don't recall their official name) have both shown that the seating arrangement of Kennedy and Connally at the time of the second shot was perfectly consistent with what would be needed to account for all the wounds,


Impressive "scholarship". That "analysis group" was Failure Analysis Inc. Posner gave the reader the impression that their work was done for him and "proved" the single bullet theory. But what Posner did not tell you is that Failure Analysis gave only a hypothetical theory for the prosectution in a mock ABA trial. Posner also did not bother to mention that Failure Analysis also provided hypotheical evidence for the defense, "proving" more than one shooter. The President of Failure Analysis Roger McCarthy worked for the Defense, and subsequently roundly criticized Posner for his gross mis-representations. Posner didn't tell you that either.

-- Rouser

[Rouser2]

Originally posted by Charles Livingston
From the link Corplinx gave, it said Ruby claimed he did it to spare Jackie from having to testify at Oswald's murder trial, so kind of the hero thing you were alluding too. That may seem like a pretty ridiculous sacrifice, but the link (I did not read it all) seems to suggest that his mental state wasnt that good. Seems plausible to me.


You can find "links" to anything. But the fact is Ruby later admitted that his first lawyer Tom Howard told him to tell that cock and bull story about sparing Jackie and the family. But you won't find that in the McAdams garbage dump.

-- Rouser

[Malachi151]

I can always go back to the ultimate qustion... where is Kennedy's head?

[Ranb]

Rouser2,

You seem to have an opinion about everyone else's posts. What do you think happened? You have a better theory than the lone nut taking a couple of pot shots at JFK.

I have to say that the easiest scenario to believe is Oswald acting alone. You know of any evidence which shows Oswald was UNABLE to do it? Thanks.

Ranb

[Mike B.]

Well this Thursday, Nov. 20, ABC here in America is running a program that is supposedly going to debunk all the conspiracy theories.

I have no idea if the show will be any good or convincing, but I will watch.



Here is Promo (http://abcnews.go.com/sections/wnt/US/JFK_promo031027.html)

[corplinx]

Originally posted by Malachi151
I can always go back to the ultimate qustion... where is Kennedy's head?

Right next to Hitler's and Bruce Lee's in the global megacorp conspiracy basement.

[SRW]

The Men Who Killed Kennedy "the Coup d'Etat" (1988)... Part on of 6. Hardly new and ground breaking. Old news. I mean fiction.

[corplinx]

Originally posted by Rouser2



A link to the well known McAdams Garbage Dump.

Garbage dump? I guess showing the xrays of Kennedy's head the disprove all shot from the front theories is garbage. Or for that matter showing the true entrance/exit wounds.

I don't consider McAdams to be a real skeptical site. Mostly it just tells the facts and lets them fall where they may.

If you have some theory about how Kennedy is killed, it is up to the claimant to present evidence and not necessary for others to disprove that theory.

Kennedy was killed by a bullet to the head that came from behind from Lee Harvey Oswald's rifle. Oswald was a nut who had already attempted on high-level assasination. This is what occam's razor and the simple facts would prefer.

If you think McAdams is a garbage dump, take a look at the conspiracy sites. 99 percent of the information _conflicts_ with other theories. That is the real garbage dump and I pity and _fool_ who cannot see that.

[Malachi151]

Originally posted by SRW
The Men Who Killed Kennedy "the Coup d'Etat" (1988)... Part on of 6. Hardly new and ground breaking. Old news. I mean fiction.

From what I understaood they are showing a mix of "The Men Who Killed Kennedy" along with other new programs as well, and I'm not sure whact the tiles of all of the programs they have shown are, they are showing so many.

At any rate, they are re-showing the same thign they showed Monday tomorrow, the 19th, so if you want to see it then tune in, otherwise, if you haven't seen it and don't plan to see it then just go away.

My point here is discussing this series specifically.

[SRW]

I watched it last time it was on and tuned in tonight just to see if there was anyting new. Nothing new.

[Renfield]

Originally posted by Rouser2



You can find "links" to anything. But the fact is Ruby later admitted that his first lawyer Tom Howard told him to tell that cock and bull story about sparing Jackie and the family. But you won't find that in the McAdams garbage dump.

-- Rouser

Its very simple. There is no credible evidence or testimony that there may have been more than 1 person involved. Anyone who testifies that there had been is a paranoid.

Once you accept those two arguements, everything becomes clear.

[Renfield]

Originally posted by Ranb
Rouser2,

You seem to have an opinion about everyone else's posts. What do you think happened? You have a better theory than the lone nut taking a couple of pot shots at JFK.

I have to say that the easiest scenario to believe is Oswald acting alone. You know of any evidence which shows Oswald was UNABLE to do it? Thanks.

Ranb

Who did it and whether or not Oswald acted alone are two different questions. We will probably never know who did it at this point. Too much time has passed.

[Rouser2]

Originally posted by Ranb
Rouser2,

>>You seem to have an opinion about everyone else's posts. What do you think happened? You have a better theory than the lone nut taking a couple of pot shots at JFK.

The Lone Nut story is a fairy tale. Since there was more than one shooter, and the evidence is overwhelming that there was more than one shooter, that adds up to conspiracy.


>>I have to say that the easiest scenario to believe is Oswald acting alone.

Only if you haven't done any homework on the subject, but merely rely on the superficial one-sided offereings of the likes of Peter, Tom, Walter or Dan -- especially Dan.

>> You know of any evidence which shows Oswald was UNABLE to do it? Thanks.

Ranb

Well, yes. Because it is very difficult to shoot the President from both above and behind, and also from in front and to the right.

-- Rouser

[Rouser2]

>>[Garbage dump? I guess showing the xrays of Kennedy's head the disprove all shot from the front theories is garbage.

The x-rays may or may not be garbage. But the McAdams conclusion is.

Dr. Randy Robertson, a highly qualified radiologist, was allowed to study the original autopsy x-rays at the National Archives. After doing so, Dr. Robertson came away convinced that the x-rays showed evidence that two bullets had struck the skull, and that one of them entered from the right front.

Dr. David Mantik, a radiation oncologist and physicist, is another doctor who has had the opportunity to study the original autopsy x-rays at the National Archives, and who has likewise concluded they show that two bullets struck the President in the skull, one from the front


>>I don't consider McAdams to be a real skeptical site. Mostly it just tells the facts and lets them fall where they may.

It is a garbage dump of half-truths, mis-representations, omissions and irrelevencies.


>>If you have some theory about how Kennedy is killed, it is up to the claimant to present evidence and not necessary for others to disprove that theory.

You've got our system of jurisprudence and common sense logic upside down. It is up to those who make a charge to provide evidence for that charge. If you make that claim that LHO did it and did it alone, it is up to you to provide evidence in support thereof.


>>Kennedy was killed by a bullet to the head that came from behind from Lee Harvey Oswald's rifle.

A conclusion unsupported by any fact.


>>Oswald was a nut who had already attempted on high-level assasination.


Another conclusion unsupported by fact.

>>This is what occam's razor and the simple facts would prefer.

Occam's razor presumes valid facts and even with valid facts can be invoked as a substitute for thinking.

>>If you think McAdams is a garbage dump, take a look at the conspiracy sites. 99 percent of the information _conflicts_ with other theories.

Another statement, while completely irrelevent, is unsupported by fact.

-- Rouser

[Rouser2]

>>Its very simple. There is no credible evidence or testimony that there may have been more than 1 person involved.


That is, of course, complete nonsense and betrays a lack of scholarship. There is a mountain of evidence that more than one person was involved.

>> Anyone who testifies that there had been is a paranoid.


>>Once you accept those two arguements, everything becomes clear.


Just as clear as the buried head of an ostrich. Excellent reasoning.

-- Rouser

[corplinx]

Originally posted by Renfield


Who did it and whether or not Oswald acted alone are two different questions. We will probably never know who did it at this point. Too much time has passed.

Oswald shot Kennedy. He acted alone. He acted alone when he tried to assassinate someone else before Kennedy. I see no reason to believe he would change that pattern.

Yes, the _evidence_ all points to Oswald. Just read the McAdams site that rouse2 is railing against because it upsets his make-believe world.

The truth is out there, and its much more boring than people want to believe. Oswald was an unstable communist radical plain and simple who the president.

People talk about things like Jack Ruby because it gets you thinking about things other than the kill bullet and the direction it came from. Most conspiracy arguements lead you away from the forensic evidence as much as possible and to seemingly strange events and circumstances that have absolutely nothing to do with bullet fragments in Kennedy's head showing conclusively that the he was shot from behind.


We know who killed Kennedy, there are just obsessive kooks who refuse to believe it and other people who refuse to believe because there are so many kooks that it seems "there must be more to it".

[Luke T.]

Wow. Rouser2. Here we go again. Do you have a big firehouse bell on your wall that goes off when the word "Kennedy" appears on JREF? :D

[Aoidoi]

Originally posted by Luke T.
Wow. Rouser2. Here we go again. Do you have a big firehouse bell on your wall that goes off when the word "Kennedy" appears on JREF? :D I'm afraid I accidentally summoned him by thinking "hey, another JFK conspiracy thread, remember the thousand or so posts on the subject by and in response to that Rouser guy?" ;)

Actually, I think there's a "Rouser signal" that shows a head going "back, and to the left. back, and to the left" which signals him. :D

An idle question, Rouser2... do you have any other hobbies? I don't recall ever seeing you post on another subject. Just curious. :)

More on topic, which conspiracy do you prefer? The holistic Cubans/Mafia/LBJ/CIA ones where everybody was in on everything and JFK was in a crossfire from all sides, or a more limited one? The History Channel shows present a lot of different theories, which one do you like?

[corplinx]

Truly, I feel sorry for anyone who doesn't see that Oswald was the lone gunman. For years, I had always assumed there was a conspiracy just because of all the noise. I always wondered if we would ever find out who killed Kennedy. I was convinced Kennedy was shot from ahead and not behind (and even used my physics background to justify it).

Then one day I stumbled across the McAdams site and there was the head xray. Not to toot my own horn, but I think it shows that I am a very reasonable person to change my position when it is proven wrong. Once again, I used my physics education but this time with a correct piece of data.

You see, I had always assumed that Kennedy's head gets knocked back which would indicate a shot from ahead. I was in error though as close investigation of the video shows his head actually snaps forward quickly and bounces back. My physics was right when I was a Kennedy kook but the data I was a presented wasn't clear.

Now, I don't care if you can find one radiologist that disputes what that head xray shows. However, if you took that xray, took the name off of it, and put in front of a room of forensic experts you will get unanimous conslusion that the bullet entered from behind.

Game over man. There is nothing to be ashamed of for believing there was more than one gunman. The thing to be ashamed of is entrenching that position when presented irrefutable evidence otherwise.

[Malachi151]

Originally posted by SRW
I watched it last time it was on and tuned in tonight just to see if there was anyting new. Nothing new.

What they showed last night is NOT THE SAME THING as they showed on Monday, or are going to show again tonight.

[Malachi151]

Again, where is JFKs head?

[Charles Livingston]

Originally posted by corplinx
Truly, I feel sorry for anyone who doesn't see that Oswald was the lone gunman. For years, I had always assumed there was a conspiracy just because of all the noise. I always wondered if we would ever find out who killed Kennedy. I was convinced Kennedy was shot from ahead and not behind (and even used my physics background to justify it).

Then one day I stumbled across the McAdams site and there was the head xray. Not to toot my own horn, but I think it shows that I am a very reasonable person to change my position when it is proven wrong. Once again, I used my physics education but this time with a correct piece of data.

You see, I had always assumed that Kennedy's head gets knocked back which would indicate a shot from ahead. I was in error though as close investigation of the video shows his head actually snaps forward quickly and bounces back. My physics was right when I was a Kennedy kook but the data I was a presented wasn't clear.

Now, I don't care if you can find one radiologist that disputes what that head xray shows. However, if you took that xray, took the name off of it, and put in front of a room of forensic experts you will get unanimous conslusion that the bullet entered from behind.

Game over man. There is nothing to be ashamed of for believing there was more than one gunman. The thing to be ashamed of is entrenching that position when presented irrefutable evidence otherwise.

I hate to break it to you, Corplinx, but your physics is still a bit wrong. From the McAdams site, there is an engineer (rocket scientist) who has written a book about the affects of projectiles on materials/bodies. He basically says that a bullet will only 'push' a body in the direction it is traveling proporationally to the recoil of the gun, ie it has to be the same (I assume there is some correction/difference for the mass of what is being pushed, but i havent really thought this through, I am really just regurgitating what the site says from memory). or something along those lines. Basically, because of other factors (mainly it seems the pressure wave created in the body as the bullet travels through it) the body (head in this case) will actually jerk toward the direction the bullet came from.

Edited to add: I was in no way trying to poke fun at you. I have an ME background and I thought the same thing as you, ie that bullets have a large 'push' effect. I totally thought people got knocked around when they got shot. Incidentilly, has anyone seen that movie with Bill Paxon and Billy Bob Thornton aobut finding a crashed plane in the woods with a bunch of cash, Paxon shoots some lady with a shotgun and she flies across the room. I couldnt stop laughing it was so funny (not because I understood the whole 'push' affect thing discussed above, but just cause she flew like 12 feet straight into a window). It was almost as funny as when Brad Pitt gets hit by the car in that movie where he comes back as death.

[Charles Livingston]

Originally posted by Rouser2



You can find "links" to anything. But the fact is Ruby later admitted that his first lawyer Tom Howard told him to tell that cock and bull story about sparing Jackie and the family. But you won't find that in the McAdams garbage dump.

-- Rouser

Look a little more carefully at the Jack Ruby discussion within the McAdams site, it debunks this and other arguments against Ruby's motive. Most of his statements were taken out of context, one instance of which totally made it sound like he was saying the opposite of what he meant.

[Doubt]

Originally posted by Aoidoi


An idle question, Rouser2... do you have any other hobbies? I don't recall ever seeing you post on another subject. Just curious. :)



He has two other hobbies. Waco and the moon landing.

He thinks that the Branch Davidians suffered convulsions from HCN gas given off by burning tear gas and that they suffered broken backs from it.

I will let you guess what he thinks about the Apollo project.
:D

[Suddenly]

Originally posted by Doubt


He has two other hobbies. Waco and the moon landing.

He thinks that the Branch Davidians suffered convulsions from HCN gas given off by burning tear gas and that they suffered broken backs from it.

I will let you guess what he thinks about the Apollo project.
:D

Also a strong opinion on the legitimacy of the U.S. Income Tax.

[corplinx]

Originally posted by Malachi151
Again, where is JFKs head?

Maybe the question you should be asking pertains to the whereabouts of your own.

[Aoidoi]

http://www.cnn.com/2003/SHOWBIZ/TV/11/19/tv.johnson.jfk.ap/index.html

Apparently the LBJ camp isn't thrilled about them accusing LBJ of murder. Of course, they'd say that either way, I suppose. :D

Rouser2's posts on those other subjects must have escaped my attention or memory (though now that it's mentioned, I do have vague recollections of other conspiracy threads). I'm not particularly surprised by his views on them, though (assuming he's not going to dispute your comments on them). Most people who accept one conspiracy theory seem to go in for lots of others.

And corplinx, that was rude, unnecessary, and really, really funny. :D

[SRW]

Originally posted by Malachi151
Is anyone watching The Men Who Killed Kennedy?

This is amazing, they are basically saying point blank that Lee Harvy Oswald was setup from the beginning, that he was involved in a plot to kill Castro via biological weapons, he was an agent that then infiltrated a group that was planning to kill JFK, and that he was the scape goat for a Lyndon Johnson backed assissnation of JFK.

Is anyone else watching this?


I was watching it at the time I read this above from you. Sorry If I could not read your mind. Perhaps it is hidden with Kennedys Head?

[Ranb]

Originally posted by Rouser2
>>[Garbage dump? I guess showing the xrays of Kennedy's head the disprove all shot from the front theories is garbage.

The x-rays may or may not be garbage. But the McAdams conclusion is.

Dr. Randy Robertson, a highly qualified radiologist, was allowed to study the original autopsy x-rays at the National Archives. After doing so, Dr. Robertson came away convinced that the x-rays showed evidence that two bullets had struck the skull, and that one of them entered from the right front.

Dr. David Mantik, a radiation oncologist and physicist, is another doctor who has had the opportunity to study the original autopsy x-rays at the National Archives, and who has likewise concluded they show that two bullets struck the President in the skull, one from the front



What about the opinions of Doctors Russel H. Morgan, William H. Carnes, Russel S. Fisher, and Alan R. Moritz? They studied x-rays and photographs. They concluded that JFK was hit by two bullets from behind. How do you decide who to believe?

Ranb

[Renfield]

Originally posted by Ranb


What about the opinions of Doctors Russel H. Morgan, William H. Carnes, Russel S. Fisher, and Alan R. Moritz? They studied x-rays and photographs. They concluded that JFK was hit by two bullets from behind. How do you decide who to believe?

Ranb

They must be kooks, I guess, like Cyril Wecht.

[Luke T.]

Originally posted by Malachi151


What they showed last night is NOT THE SAME THING as they showed on Monday, or are going to show again tonight.

He probably means the last time it has been on every year this time of year for the last decade or more.

[Luke T.]

RE: back, and to the left. Do we have an x-ray of JFK's head on the internet anywhere. Entrance and exit wounds ought to say it all.

Could be JFK's head was thrown back by the force of the massive chunk of skull and brain meat exiting out of his forehead that you can clearly see in the famous Magruder film.

[Rouser2]

Originally posted by corplinx [/i]


>>People talk about things like Jack Ruby because it gets you thinking about things other than the kill bullet and the direction it came from. Most conspiracy arguements lead you away from the forensic evidence as much as possible and to seemingly strange events and circumstances that have absolutely nothing to do with bullet fragments in Kennedy's head showing conclusively that the he was shot from behind.


The phrase "showing conclusively" is not evidence nor fact but conclusion. In fact the bullet fragments in Kennedy's head is a subject of controversy. Even more of a controversy is the evidence cited by Doug Horne of the Assassinations Records Review Board that the autopsy photos and x-rays are of someone else's brain. Thus, nothing can be certain about the autopsy.


>>We know who killed Kennedy, there are just obsessive kooks who refuse to believe it and other people who refuse to believe because there are so many kooks that it seems "there must be more to it".

That, of course, betrays your own fallacious reasoning. People who don't agree with you are all "kooks"? Try discussing evidence, but then that's obviously not your bag.

-- Rouser

[Rouser2]

Originally posted by Charles Livingston [/i]

>>Look a little more carefully at the Jack Ruby discussion within the McAdams site, it debunks this and other arguments against Ruby's motive. Most of his statements were taken out of context, one instance of which totally made it sound like he was saying the opposite of what he meant. [/B][/QUOTE]


How tiresome it is to address the non-arguments of the McAdams groupies. He "debunks" it, eh? And just how is that? Can you think or speak for yourself?


-- Rouser

[Rouser2]

Originally posted by Ranb [/i]
[B]

>>What about the opinions of Doctors Russel H. Morgan, William H. Carnes, Russel S. Fisher, and Alan R. Moritz? They studied x-rays and photographs. They concluded that JFK was hit by two bullets from behind. How do you decide who to believe?

X-rays are nothing but a bunch of shadows. "Experts" read them and give opinions -- subjective opinions. One can expect government "experts" to stick to the government script. The government, is, after all, a prime suspect in the cirme and a proven felon in the obstruction of justice surrounding its investigation. I find it much more useful to weigh evidence that does not rely on the subjective readings of x-ray shadows of a brain which, according to the ARRB may not even be JFK's at all.

-- Rouser

[Ranb]

Rouser2 posted;

"Dr. Randy Robertson, a highly qualified radiologist, was allowed to study the original autopsy x-rays at the National Archives. ....................Dr. David Mantik, a radiation oncologist and physicist, is another doctor who has had the opportunity to study the original autopsy x-rays at the National Archives, and who has likewise concluded they show that two bullets struck the President in the skull, one from the front"

Then he posted;

"..........Even more of a controversy is the evidence cited by Doug Horne of the Assassinations Records Review Board that the autopsy photos and x-rays are of someone else's brain. Thus, nothing can be certain about the autopsy."

And then;

"X-rays are nothing but a bunch of shadows. "Experts" read them and give opinions -- subjective opinions. One can expect government "experts" to stick to the government script. The government, is, after all, a prime suspect in the cirme and a proven felon in the obstruction of justice surrounding its investigation. I find it much more useful to weigh evidence that does not rely on the subjective readings of x-ray shadows of a brain which, according to the ARRB may not even be JFK's at all"


First you say LHO could have not acted alone because Robertson and Mantik examined x-rays and said shots came from the front. Then you appear to support Horne's claim the x-rays are not JFK's. Then you decide that x-rays are nothing but shadows. Finally you then decide to question the integrity of four doctors who gave the government their findings. So what do you know about these four doctors that makes you think they would rather stick to a "script" than tell the truth?

Since your "faith" in x-rays appears to be eroding, as shown above, why do you think JFK was shot from the front and behind?

Ranb

[corplinx]

"That, of course, betrays your own fallacious reasoning. People who don't agree with you are all "kooks"? Try discussing evidence, but then that's obviously not your bag.

-- Rouser "

I like your method:
1. declare a website disagreeing with you a "garbage dump"
2. use an interpretation of an xray that only a few people and not the majority of the forensic community agree with
3. when this is pointed out, declare its not even the real xray


The xray photos show the location of fragments you would expect if from a rear entry wound. The bullet enters, fragments, and the fragments travel away from each other towards the front of the skull.

Not only do front shot theories lack any sort of evidence but they also don't account for simply forensic and physics that even Joe Sixpack who watches CSI takes for granted.

If you want to "believe" , you keep "believing". Its a free country pal. I just pity you.

[Theodore Kurita]

For the people that keeping on begging for the Autopsy photos... Here they are:

http://www.jfklancer.com/aphotos.html



http://www.jfklancer.com/pub/md/jfk03clr.JPG

http://www.jfklancer.com/photos/Autopsy_photos/AP_XRAY.GIF

[Rouser2]

]Originally posted by Ranb [/i]

>>First you say LHO could have not acted alone because Robertson and Mantik examined x-rays and said shots came from the front.

Never made any such statement. That was merely a response to someone else who cited other x-ray "experts" as definitive "proof".

>> Then you appear to support Horne's claim the x-rays are not JFK's.

I cited Horne's assertion. That's all.

>> Then you decide that x-rays are nothing but shadows. Finally you then decide to question the integrity of four doctors who gave the government their findings. So what do you know about these four doctors that makes you think they would rather stick to a "script" than tell the truth?

I know that others do not agree with them and that their conclusions do not jibe with the other forensic evidence.


>>Since your "faith" in x-rays appears to be eroding, as shown above, why do you think JFK was shot from the front and behind?

Other than the common sense observation of the Z film, all of the Parkland doctors, nurses and attendants observed a large blowout hole in the back of the President's head. Then there is the throat wound which all of the doctors at Parkland initially described as a wound of entrance. Then there are the numerous witnesses who saw and heard a shot or shots from the grassy knoll including Kenny O'Donnoll in the follow-up car who said the FBI told him to lie about it. And then there is the insistence of Gov. Connelly and wife that he, Gov. Connelly had been hit by a separate bullet, thus negating the single bullet theory.

-- Rouser

[Rouser2]

Originally posted by corplinx [/i]



>>I like your method:

>>1. declare a website disagreeing with you a "garbage dump"

Websites are not evidence, Sherlock. A website may or may not contain valid evidence, but merely citing a website betrays your own lack of understanding and scholarship and reluctance to deal directly with facts.


>>2. use an interpretation of an xray that only a few people and not the majority of the forensic community agree with

There is no such a thing as a "majority" of the forensic community.
Four radioligists do not constitute a "majority of anything.


>>3. when this is pointed out, declare its not even the real xray

Declared no such thing but merely pointed out the controversy over the validity of the autopsy photos and x-rays.


>>The xray photos show the location of fragments you would expect if from a rear entry wound. The bullet enters, fragments, and the fragments travel away from each other towards the front of the skull.


That's an interpretation which you copied from someone else. The x-ray photos show a bunch of shadows which may include dots that could to be bullet fragments. Those fragments could have come from the rear or from the front, or from both front and rear as Cyril Wecht believes. Morever, the very existence of alleged fragments points to a frangible bullet, unlike the jacketed bullets which were allegedly shot from the TSBD.

-- Rouser

[Brown]

I watched one of the episodes last night. What a piece of crap. Some guy with white hair got all weepy when he said that he "knew" that Kennedy was killed by a conspiracy, and that no one would listen to him.

His theories had more holes than a fishing net, but the theories were presented as factual. To call this program a "documentary" is a disgrace, and for the History channel to characterize it as "well-researched" is a joke.

[Wolverine]

Originally posted by Brown
I watched one of the episodes last night. What a piece of crap. Some guy with white hair got all weepy when he said that he "knew" that Kennedy was killed by a conspiracy, and that no one would listen to him.

His theories had more holes than a fishing net, but the theories were presented as factual. To call this program a "documentary" is a disgrace, and for the History channel to characterize it as "well-researched" is a joke.

Yes, indeed. I took the opportunity to write THC a nastygram on the subject of airing woo-woo programs, and encourage others to do the same.

[Ranb]

Originally posted by Rouser2
Originally posted by corplinx [/i]



............ Morever, the very existence of alleged fragments points to a frangible bullet, unlike the jacketed bullets which were allegedly shot from the TSBD.

-- Rouser

I do not know what your definition of "frangible" is, but there has yet to be a bullet made for a rifle that will hold up to impact with a hard object all the time. Remember, both lead and copper jackets are SOFT. While the copper jacket helps hold the lead together as it penetrates, the bullet will still deform and lose mass as it penetrates hard objects like bone. Usually fragible ammo is designed to break up upon impact with soft objects to prevent excessive penetration. A 160 grain 6.5mm FMJ bullet will penetrate very well without losing much mass or deforming much until it hits bone. Then it will get beat up and deflect off course. Even in flesh, a bullet will yaw and change direction. The best way to reduce penetration of a high speed bullet is to make it break up or mushroom. The FMJ ammo Oswald used did not do either.

Ranb

[SRW]

Originally posted by Brown
I watched one of the episodes last night. What a piece of crap. Some guy with white hair got all weepy when he said that he "knew" that Kennedy was killed by a conspiracy, and that no one would listen to him.

His theories had more holes than a fishing net, but the theories were presented as factual. To call this program a "documentary" is a disgrace, and for the History channel to characterize it as "well-researched" is a joke.

I watched the Discovery Channels Unsolved History, just prior to watching that piece on the history channel. The investigators were sitting in the storm drain attempting to see someone standing where JFK would have been. No matter how hard they tried they could not. The comment they made was that, it was a stupid theory.

[Charles Livingston]

Originally posted by Rouser2
Originally posted by Charles Livingston [/i]

>>Look a little more carefully at the Jack Ruby discussion within the McAdams site, it debunks this and other arguments against Ruby's motive. Most of his statements were taken out of context, one instance of which totally made it sound like he was saying the opposite of what he meant.


How tiresome it is to address the non-arguments of the McAdams groupies. He "debunks" it, eh? And just how is that? Can you think or speak for yourself?


-- Rouser [/B][/QUOTE]

First off, how have you addressed the 'non-arguments' of the McAdams group? You have not addressed the evidence presented in that site, you have merely declared it a 'non-argument'. Secondly, how does the site debunk it? Read it for yourself, buddy. In fact, read my quote above, "most of his statements were taken out of context...", I even summarized it for you. Sorry I didnt put forth every argument the site made, I didint think it was necesary. And yes, I can think and speak for myself. Not having access to or having analyzed any of the evidence, I read portions of the site and came to the same conculsions as whoever wrote the site. Was it really necessary to come up with new arguments that not one of the billion people more educated about htis than me did? The site is very logical and the conclusions seem valid from the evidence presented. You could read it yourself. Why dont you actually address some of the arguments on that site rather than just declaring them wrong.

[Malachi151]

I thought they were going to reply what they showed on Monday last night, but they didn't, that was something else.

So far the Monday night series was the best IMO.

[Charles Livingston]

Originally posted by Malachi151
I thought they were going to reply what they showed on Monday last night, but they didn't, that was something else.

So far the Monday night series was the best IMO.

Last night they had the whole segment with the green beret, and how he couldnt find the other green beret who he said was likley also asked to kill some navy guy. Yet, when I went on the McAdams site they showed correspondence with the first green beret showing that he had in fact found the second guy and the second guy had no recollection of the first guy or being asked to kill anyone. Now, of course we are taking both of these guys workds for what happened. But, wasnt it at least worth updating the documentary to show that the second green beret was not in fact missing? Seems pretty weak by THC to me.

[Mike B.]

Is anyone going to watch the program on ABC tonight at 9:00 am? It is supposed to use new technology and animation to back up the Warren Report.


Peter Jennings says something to the effect, that he doesn't believe reasonable people can believe in the conspiracy after watching.

That sounds like a lot of hype, but I will watch.

[Mike B.]

Does Rouser2 or anyone else have a link to the Failure Analysis exhibits for the Defense of Lee Harvey Oswald?

[Tony]

What did you guys think of the JFK movie?

[pgwenthold]

Originally posted by Tony
What did you guys think of the JFK movie?

Considering how much is blatently wrong in it, I'm not sure that the part about JFK being shot on Nov 22, 1963 should be considered reliable.

[Regnad Kcin]

Originally posted by Luke T.
Wow. Rouser2. Here we go again. Do you have a big firehouse bell on your wall that goes off when the word "Kennedy" appears on JREF? :D :roll:

[Ranb]

Originally posted by Charles Livingston


I hate to break it to you, Corplinx, but your physics is still a bit wrong. From the McAdams site, there is an engineer (rocket scientist) who has written a book about the affects of projectiles on materials/bodies. He basically says that a bullet will only 'push' a body in the direction it is traveling proporationally to the recoil of the gun, ie it has to be the same (I assume there is some correction/difference for the mass of what is being pushed, but i havent really thought this through, I am really just regurgitating what the site says from memory). or something along those lines. Basically, because of other factors (mainly it seems the pressure wave created in the body as the bullet travels through it) the body (head in this case) will actually jerk toward the direction the bullet came from.



The recoil of the rifle is calculated using the mass of the bullet and gun powder. Therefore, the amount the bullet can push the body it hits is always less than the recoil of the rifle that shot it. Also, unless the bullet is stopped inside the target, you must use the delta V to determine the amount of energy or momentum transfered to the target. I use an equation in my reloading spreadsheet to try and determine how much a new cartridge will beat me up when I try it out for the first time. I just thought I'd bring this up, I have very little engineering background, I only know what I have picked up from reading on my own.

I read about Penn and Teller performing a little demo with some carcano rifles and melons. They would shoot a melon with the same setup Oswald used. When they hit the melon, it rolled off the stand towards them. The theory was that the force of the melon guts shooting out of the front of the melon was more than the momentum transfered from the bullet in the forward direction. Of course, melons are not human skulls or vice versa.

Ranb

[Rouser2]

Originally posted by Brown [/i]
>>I watched one of the episodes last night. What a piece of crap. Some guy with white hair got all weepy when he said that he "knew" that Kennedy was killed by a conspiracy, and that no one would listen to him.

Some guy, eh?

>>His theories had more holes than a fishing net, but the theories were presented as factual. To call this program a "documentary" is a disgrace, and for the History channel to characterize it as "well-researched" is a joke.

Some guy on this board says he watched one of the episodes, some guy with white hair got all weepy, that his theories had more holes than a fishing net. But this guy could't remember who he was watching, nor what he was saying , nor could he even cite a single "hole". Perhaps this guy should take notes next time.

-- Rouser

[Rouser2]

Originally posted by Ranb [/i]


>>I do not know what your definition of "frangible" is, but there has yet to be a bullet made for a rifle that will hold up to impact with a hard object all the time.
Remember, both lead and copper jackets are SOFT. While the copper jacket helps hold the lead together as it penetrates, the bullet will still deform and lose mass as it penetrates hard objects like bone.
Usually fragible ammo is designed to break up upon impact with soft objects to prevent excessive penetration. A 160 grain 6.5mm FMJ bullet will penetrate very well without losing much mass or deforming much until it hits bone. Then it will get beat up and deflect off course. Even in flesh, a bullet will yaw and change direction. The best way to reduce penetration of a high speed bullet is to make it break up or mushroom. The FMJ ammo Oswald used did not do either.

You mean the FMG ammo Oswald allegedly used. But that is the point. The excessive number of tiny fragments points to a frangible bullet and not the ammo matching what was "found" on the 6th floor of the TSBD.

-- Rouser

[Rouser2]

Originally posted by Charles Livingston [/i]


How tiresome it is to address the non-arguments of the McAdams groupies. He "debunks" it, eh? And just how is that? Can you think or speak for yourself?


-- Rouser

>>First off, how have you addressed the 'non-arguments' of the McAdams group?


No. That is impossible. But I have addresed the "arguments" when specifically cited. Citing a web page is to cite nothing. You might as well say, "go read so and so's book. He debunks everything you say." If you are a coherent debater, you will cite exactly what point you are trying to make. Then one can respond to it. But one cannot respond to a non-argument such as "go see someone's web page". That is not an argument.

>> You have not addressed the evidence presented in that site, you have merely declared it a 'non-argument'.

What evidence?

>> Secondly, how does the site debunk it? Read it for yourself, buddy.

No, you read it. Then come back on this board and tell us what you have read.

>> In fact, read my quote above, "most of his statements were taken out of context...",

We are only speaking of one statement, and that was not taken out of any context.

>> I even summarized it for you. Sorry I didnt put forth every argument the site made,

No. But that would be off point.

>>I didint think it was necesary. And yes, I can think and speak for myself.

Prove it.

>> Not having access to or having analyzed any of the evidence, I read portions of the site and came to the same conculsions as whoever wrote the site.

Well, if you start out by swallowing a whole bunch of false hyptheses, you can come to any conclusion desired.

>> Was it really necessary to come up with new arguments that not one of the billion people more educated about htis than me did? The site is very logical and the conclusions seem valid from the evidence presented.

From the evidence presented? Yeah, right.

>>You could read it yourself. Why dont you actually address some of the arguments on that site rather than just declaring them wrong.

I have read it. If you have a single point you would like to raise, then do it.

-- Rouser

[Rouser2]

Originally posted by Mike B.
Does Rouser2 or anyone else have a link to the Failure Analysis exhibits for the Defense of Lee Harvey Oswald?


Sometimes, even in the year 2003, it is necessary to pop open a book. Everything can't be found by pointing and clicking. You will find a partial transcript of the mock ABA trial in "Killing the Truth" by Harrison Livingston.


-- Rouser

[Mike B.]

So did anyone see the Peter Jennings special last night?

[Ranb]

Originally posted by Rouser2


You mean the FMG ammo Oswald allegedly used. But that is the point. The excessive number of tiny fragments points to a frangible bullet and not the ammo matching what was "found" on the 6th floor of the TSBD.

-- Rouser

It is obvious you know little about ballistics or ammunition. Most high velocity ammunition leaves behind traces, or pieces, or specks of lead, copper or other material in a hard target. Even AP bullets with hardened steel cores shed their jackets. The flakes left behind in JFK and Connelly were very small. In the case of the second shot, (see CE 399) they came from the base of the bullet. If this bullet had fragmented, then it would have broken into several pieces. If it was fragable ammunition, then the dozens of pieces would have been too small to penetrate past JFK's body.

The number and size of the fragments added up to very little mass. They were not large chunks.

Ranb

[Wolverine]

Originally posted by Mike B.
So did anyone see the Peter Jennings special last night?

Argh, I forgot all about it. Is it going to be rebroadcast?

[Luke T.]

Originally posted by Mike B.
So did anyone see the Peter Jennings special last night?

I taped it and am going to watch it this weekend.

[Luke T.]

Well, those autopsy photos in this topic are about as graphic as it gets. But they confirm what I said about the large amount of material blown away from the front of JFK's head. The front right side in particular. For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction.

Back, and to the left.

[Skeptical Greg]

Interesting discussion...

[pgwenthold]

Originally posted by Luke T.
Well, those autopsy photos in this topic are about as graphic as it gets. But they confirm what I said about the large amount of material blown away from the front of JFK's head. The front right side in particular. For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction.

Back, and to the left.

And it should be noted that "back and to the left" means that stuff is coming _out_ of "front and to the right."

Now, why would stuff be spraying _out of the front_ if he got hit by a bullet moving from front to back?

Odd, before I knew much about the assassination, but still knew a lot about physics, I always thought the Z-film was exactly what I would expect for a shot to the head from behind. You can see matter spray forward, which comes from the bullet pushing it out, but the rest of the head has to recoil to account for it, back and to the left. I was actually more confused when I heard the claim that the motion of the head indicated a shot from the front. I knew too much about physics for that to make any sense.

[KillerBob]

Lots of info about the show here and does a better job of rehashing the show than I could:

http://abcnews.go.com/jfk_conspiracy/jfk_conspiracy_index.html

Pretty good show, it did a good job of dispelling the major points that the conspiracy theorists hang their hat on. The CGI did an excellent job of showing the scene from every angle.

I especially liked the section where they exposed Oliver Stone's "artistic license" in his film, since that seems to be the source for most people's ideas on the Kennedy assassination.

When they were talking about the Stone film, they showed the scene where they talked about how there was no way LHO could get off three shots in the time allowed. ABC then cuts to an 89 year old man with a bolt action rifle who's able to demonstrate firing and reloading and does it a full second faster than LHO did, even taking extra time to make sure the third shot was accurate, like LHO.

Check the message boards on the ABC website. About 90% saying the show is a piece of crap. As usual, no one offers much in the way of evidence for a conspiracy. They just use the same tired questions about this, that, and the other bit of evidence that is missing, hidden, or destroyed by the government and would blow the case open "when the truth finally comes out".

[Luke T.]

Originally posted by Luke T.
RE: back, and to the left. Do we have an x-ray of JFK's head on the internet anywhere. Entrance and exit wounds ought to say it all.

Could be JFK's head was thrown back by the force of the massive chunk of skull and brain meat exiting out of his forehead that you can clearly see in the famous Magruder film.

Heh. I said Magruder. Whole other conspiracy.

Zapruder!

[Brown]

Rouser, your personal insults and stunning combination of ignorance and undeserved arrogance have become quite tiresome. There was a time when you made contributions to the debate, but that time has passed. Welcome to my ignore list. Do not bother replying to this message.

[Kodiak]

Unsolved History on the Discovery Channel recently broadcast convincing forensic experiments showing the likelyhood of Oswald being the only shooter. They disproved pretty convincingly the grassy knoll and storm drain scenarios, using laser pointers and aerial photographs from the period. They also mapped, reanacted, and timed Oswalds escape route and compared them with the testimony and evidence from the case.

The episode is scheduled for rebroadcast in mid-December (the 20th, I think) according to the Discovery Channel website.

[wert]

If you press Rouser to posit a credible chain of events (supported in a a verfiably factual manner) in the Kennedy assassination he'll give you nebulous crap about some kind of mafia conspiracy.

Or ask him what he thinks about the supposed "Moon Hoax" for a little fun. :)

[Regnad Kcin]

Originally posted by Brown
Rouser, your personal insults and stunning combination of ignorance and undeserved arrogance have become quite tiresome. There was a time when you made contributions to the debate, but that time has passed. Well, I thought the time had come and gone in the old JFK thread way back when. (What, a year and a half ago?) I began (and once again continue) to suspect "he" has some stake in promoting an assassination conspiracy. Book author, perhaps?

Say Brown, wanna meet after school for black helicopter flying lessons?

[Rouser2]

Originally posted by KillerBob [/i]
Lots of info about the show here and does a better job of rehashing the show than I could:

http://abcnews.go.com/jfk_conspiracy/jfk_conspiracy_index.html

>>Pretty good show, it did a good job of dispelling the major points that the conspiracy theorists hang their hat on.

Name one.

>>I especially liked the section where they exposed Oliver Stone's "artistic license" in his film, since that seems to be the source for most people's ideas on the Kennedy assassination.

Exposing "artistic license"? That's just like beating a straw man. The real assassination scenario has nothing to do with Stone's movie as any serious student well knows. Straw men are easy to destroy. But try the real thing next time, sonny.

>>When they were talking about the Stone film, they showed the scene where they talked about how there was no way LHO could get off three shots in the time allowed. ABC then cuts to an 89 year old man with a bolt action rifle who's able to demonstrate firing and reloading and does it a full second faster than LHO did, even taking extra time to make sure the third shot was accurate, like LHO.

Anyone can fire and reload in the time frame. But hit a moving target through a tree? Possible, but difficult.

>>Check the message boards on the ABC website. About 90% saying the show is a piece of crap. As usual, no one offers much in the way of evidence for a conspiracy.

Just as you and ABC have offered no evidence in support of LHO as the lone gunman.


-- Rouser

[KillerBob]

Originally posted by Rouser2
Originally posted by KillerBob [/i]
Lots of info about the show here and does a better job of rehashing the show than I could:

http://abcnews.go.com/jfk_conspiracy/jfk_conspiracy_index.html

>>Pretty good show, it did a good job of dispelling the major points that the conspiracy theorists hang their hat on.

Name one.

>>I especially liked the section where they exposed Oliver Stone's "artistic license" in his film, since that seems to be the source for most people's ideas on the Kennedy assassination.

Exposing "artistic license"? That's just like beating a straw man. The real assassination scenario has nothing to do with Stone's movie as any serious student well knows. Straw men are easy to destroy. But try the real thing next time, sonny.

>>When they were talking about the Stone film, they showed the scene where they talked about how there was no way LHO could get off three shots in the time allowed. ABC then cuts to an 89 year old man with a bolt action rifle who's able to demonstrate firing and reloading and does it a full second faster than LHO did, even taking extra time to make sure the third shot was accurate, like LHO.

Anyone can fire and reload in the time frame. But hit a moving target through a tree? Possible, but difficult.

>>Check the message boards on the ABC website. About 90% saying the show is a piece of crap. As usual, no one offers much in the way of evidence for a conspiracy.

Just as you and ABC have offered no evidence in support of LHO as the lone gunman.


-- Rouser


Wow, you're right. I take back everything I've said. I don't know how I could have been so blind not to recognize the wide ranging conspiracy that you've been completely unable to show any evidence for whatsoever.

Now that I'm converted, please set me straight on the moon hoax.

[Rouser2]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Ranb
[B]

>>It is obvious you know little about ballistics or ammunition. Most high velocity ammunition leaves behind traces, or pieces, or specks of lead, copper or other material in a hard target.

The alleged bullets fired from the 6th floor rifle were not from a high velocity weapon.

>>Even AP bullets with hardened steel cores shed their jackets. The flakes left behind in JFK and Connelly were very small. In the case of the second shot, (see CE 399) they came from the base of the bullet. If this bullet had fragmented, then it would have broken into several pieces.


That shifts the discussion from one bullet to another. We were discussing the head wound, not the magic bullet allegedlly fired from behind, through JFK shoulder, out through his neck, into Connolly's back, though his chest, and finally lodging in his leg, ending up virtually pristine and "found" on a stretcher. That's a whole different shot (or more likely, shots).

>>The number and size of the fragments added up to very little mass. They were not large chunks.


There were large chunks (a missle found in the brain) and lots of smaller fragments pointing to different shots, coming from different directions from different weapons.


-- Rouser

[kookbreaker]

It was pretty well established from the previous JFK thread that Rouser has no clue when it comes to weaponry and munitions. I questioned if he had ever fired a weapon, and he just got surly and insulting.

IIRC, the thread ended up with Rouser claiming some kind of sooper-sekrit ammunition being used (one that does not exist) or a pistol weilding super assasin hiding in the sewers. That was after several pages of pressing him on his theories which he seemed determined not to solidify since they were such a pathetic joke.

[Rouser2]

Originally posted by kookbreaker
It was pretty well established from the previous JFK thread that Rouser has no clue when it comes to weaponry and munitions. I questioned if he had ever fired a weapon, and he just got surly and insulting.

IIRC, the thread ended up with Rouser claiming some kind of sooper-sekrit ammunition being used (one that does not exist) or a pistol weilding super assasin hiding in the sewers. That was after several pages of pressing him on his theories which he seemed determined not to solidify since they were such a pathetic joke.

It was pretty well established from the previous JFK thread that 'kookbreakers" such as Mr. Kookbreaker himself had absolutely nothing to contribute but ad hominem attacks as false assertions. I invite you to slither back into your slime.

-- Rouser

[kookbreaker]

Originally posted by Rouser2


It was pretty well established from the previous JFK thread that 'kookbreakers" such as Mr. Kookbreaker himself had absolutely nothing to contribute but ad hominem attacks as false assertions. I invite you to slither back into your slime.

-- Rouser

Dream faster.

[wert]

Hey Rouser!

Good to see you!


Now, since you obviously have no faith in the Warren commision, Posner, etc, let us hear your theory.

And please provide enough real (and verifiable) evidence to convince us that your version of reality is more convincing than that set forth by Posner, The McAdams site, etc. And explain to us why your sources are in any way more credible than those supporting the lone gunman theory.

And please, refrain from simply dismissing Posner and McAdams out of hand with Ad-hominen (i.e. Garbage dumps!)

I'm sure we'll be interested in subjecting any theory you might have to the same scrutiny you reserve for Posner, McAdams, etc...


And yes, purely so folks can further judge your credibility in general.

Do you think we really went to the Moon? :)

[Ranb]

Originally posted by Rouser2
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Ranb
[B]


The alleged bullets fired from the 6th floor rifle were not from a high velocity weapon.


-- Rouser

So what is your limit for high velocity ammo?

Examples,
30-30 170 grain bullet at at 2100 fps
7.62mm 165 grain bullet at 2600 fps
7.62x39R 150 grain bullet at 2100 fps

Or the 6.5 carcano 160 grain bullet at 2100 fps. This bullet is obviously powerful enough to kill two people at 100 yards.

Are any of these high velocity in your opinion? They all sure seem like it to me dude, and they are at the lower end of the power scale for the military.

You said "Anyone can fire and reload in the time frame. But hit a moving target through a tree? Possible, but difficult." Oswald shot at a slowly moving target from less than 90 yards while it was moving almost directly away from him. He missed his first shot, probably because he shot through tree branches. He only needed to lead his target a few inches to get on target. Anyone who only hits 2 out of 3 is not doing a very good job in this situation. Join me in the woods and I can show you how easy it is to hit a large man sized target (or a head shot) at 90 yards with a carcano using a scope or the sights.

Why do you keep on using the word pristine when describing the "magic" bullet? It has rifling marks, is beat up and has lead missing from the base. I can always tell someone who has an opinion but little knowledge about this when they say the word pristine. You reply to messages like a troll, this is the last time I take the bait.

Ranb

[wert]

Originally posted by Ranb



Why do you keep on using the word pristine when describing the "magic" bullet? It has rifling marks, is beat up and has lead missing from the base. I can always tell someone who has an opinion but little knowledge about this when they say the word pristine.



Yep, I totally agree. Anyone who thinks the following is "pristine" has very little credibility IMHO.

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/ce399.gif

[kookbreaker]

Court TV just had a special on the JFK assasination as part of its forensic files show. They stayed away from the speculaiton and stuck with the hard evidence.

What surprised me is how one of the buff proponents made his complaint about the SBT. He demonstrated it by having two guys sit straight up in chairs, hands in their laps, one in front of the other, and pointed at various wounds. Basicly doing the same thing that Kostner did in the movie JFK. It looked particularly silly since they followed it with the failure analysis work. You'd think at this point that if someone disagreed with the SBT, then OK, but to do that kind of sad inaccurate demonstration?

They also covered the acoustic evidence, doing a good job of pointing out the controversy between grousp saying it was/wasn't. They got their own expert in and he ran tests based on the copy the HSCA team used. He found their correlation to the sounds acoustic 'fingerprint' very wanting. A computer generation of random noise had more points of correlation. He also noted that the "shots" do not resemble each other acousticly in the least, meaning that it was either four very different rifles or possible not the shots at all. Given the unlikelyness of four sperate shooters taking only one shot each, I do have to snicker.

The voices on the tape were confirmed as well.

[Rouser2]

]Originally posted by Ranb [/i]


>>Why do you keep on using the word pristine when describing the "magic" bullet? It has rifling marks, is beat up and has lead missing from the base. I can always tell someone who has an opinion but little knowledge about this when they say the word pristine.<<

The word "pristine" as pertaining to the magic bullet, was originally used by Cyril Wecht. But neither he nor I ever said the bullet was completely "pristine" but VIRTUALLY pristine, which it is, except for its base. To you get the difference?

-- Rouser

[Rouser2]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by kookbreaker
>>Court TV just had a special on the JFK assasination as part of its forensic files show. They stayed away from the speculaiton and stuck with the hard evidence.

>>What surprised me is how one of the buff proponents made his complaint about the SBT.

"Buff" proponets? More ad hominems do not help prove your case but only betray your closed minded bias.


>> He demonstrated it by having two guys sit straight up in chairs, hands in their laps, one in front of the other, and pointed at various wounds. Basicly doing the same thing that Kostner did in the movie JFK.

The movie is not the reality. Why don't you try to address the the real situation instead of continually beating a straw man?

>>They also covered the acoustic evidence,...

The acoustic "evidence" is, in my opinion, just more 20th century witchcraft. One expert hears it one way, another, another. There is much better evidence for more than one shooter than the sounds of an open mike on a motocycle.

-- Rouser

[Rouser2]

Originally posted by wert [/i]


Yep, I totally agree. Anyone who thinks the following is "pristine" has very little credibility IMHO.

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/ce399.gif


Typical McAdams claptrap. He only shows what he wants to show. The bullet is normally described as VIRTUALLY pristine, which it is, except for its base. An apt description of a missle that allegedly coarsed through two bodies, and several limbs before allegedly ending up on a stretcher.


http://www.jfk-info.com/33-3318a.gif

[Rouser2]

Originally posted by Ranb [/i]

>>So what is your limit for high velocity ammo?

>>Examples,
30-30 170 grain bullet at at 2100 fps
7.62mm 165 grain bullet at 2600 fps
7.62x39R 150 grain bullet at 2100 fps

>>Or the 6.5 carcano 160 grain bullet at 2100 fps. This bullet is obviously powerful enough to kill two people at 100 yards.

>>Are any of these high velocity in your opinion? They all sure seem like it to me dude, and they are at the lower end of the power scale for the military.

"Leyson's New Guns Annual (1961), p. 19, describes a 170 grain, .30/30 bullet which still has a velocity of 1890 fps at 100 yards as a "heavier bullet of slower velocity" than the high velocity bullets he has discussed, such as the Silver Tip 180 grain bullet with a velocity of 2850 fps at 100 yards. Notice, especially, that this .30/30 bullet is traveling faster than the Carcano bullet at 100 yards, yet is still described as slower than high velocity. This strongly supports the description of the Mannlicher-Carcano as a medium to low velocity weapon in technical terms that have been constant since at least 1961."
http://www.assassinationscience.com/fallacies.html

>>You said "Anyone can fire and reload in the time frame. But hit a moving target through a tree? Possible, but difficult." Oswald shot at a slowly moving target from less than 90 yards while it was moving almost directly away from him. He missed his first shot, probably because he shot through tree branches. He only needed to lead his target a few inches to get on target. Anyone who only hits 2 out of 3 is not doing a very good job in this situation. Join me in the woods and I can show you how easy it is to hit a large man sized target (or a head shot) at 90 yards with a carcano using a scope or the sights.

Funny that none of the WC's FBI sharpshooters could do it. And they didn't even have Oswald's mis-aligned scope.

-- Rouser

[kookbreaker]

[i]Originally posted by Rouser2 [/
Funny that none of the WC's FBI sharpshooters could do it. And they didn't even have Oswald's mis-aligned scope.

-- Rouser [/B]

To bad for you that they did.

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/zirbel.txt

[kookbreaker]

Originally posted by Rouser2
Originally posted by wert [/i]

Typical McAdams claptrap. He only shows what he wants to show. The bullet is normally described as VIRTUALLY pristine, which it is, except for its base. An apt description of a missle that allegedly coarsed through two bodies, and several limbs before allegedly ending up on a stretcher.

http://www.jfk-info.com/33-
3318a.gif

It was not pristine by any means, and what exactly do you expect from FMJ rounds? Once again your stunning lack of munitions knowledge shines through.

Hint: FMJ rounds were designed to avoid massive disformation. There's a host of reasons for this.

[kookbreaker]

Originally posted by Rouser2
Originally posted by Ranb [/i]

>>So what is your limit for high velocity ammo?

"Leyson's New Guns Annual (1961), p. 19, describes a 170 grain, .30/30 bullet which still has a velocity of 1890 fps at 100 yards as a "heavier bullet of slower velocity" than the high velocity bullets he has discussed, such as the Silver Tip 180 grain bullet with a velocity of 2850 fps at 100 yards. Notice, especially, that this .30/30 bullet is traveling faster than the Carcano bullet at 100 yards, yet is still described as slower than high velocity. This strongly supports the description of the Mannlicher-Carcano as a medium to low velocity weapon in technical terms that have been constant since at least 1961."
http://www.assassinationscience.com/fallacies.html


Comparing hunting rounds to military rounds is a misnomer. It like comparing stats in High school football to those in the Pros. Both are on different scales, and for different reasons.

'High-power' Hunting rounds are designed to stop big game. Things like Bears, Elk, Moose, what have you. They perform this job very well, but their purpose is not well suited for military purposes. 'high-power' is actually something of a marketing gimmick from the early part of the 20th century. There's really no set standard for it and most experienced hunters would laugh at the effort to try and do so since different round designs have different purposes. For example, the Silvertip 180 round cited above is designed to penetrate and then expand. Sorta like a HEAP round for the animal kingdom.

Miltary things are a little simple and a little less velocity happy. High-powered magnum hunting rounds do not appear much on the battlefield, mostly because deer don't shoot back. Even so, some military sniper weapons (such as the .50 sniper rifles and machine guns) blow away the hunting magnum rounds. But these are closer to being cannons than practical rifles.

Again, there is no set standard for what makes a round 'high-powered' in the military, especially since two different designed rounds with similar FPS ratings can have completely different wounds. In general, one can classify as such:

Low power: Pistols, submachine guns.

Medium Power: Assault rifles, Short battle rifles, most carbines.

High power: Battle rifles from the early part of the 20th century. Certain assault rifle designs,

That said, the wounding effects of such weapons is not indicated by their power by any means. A .45 pistol bullet at short range is likely to kill you instantly, wheras a shot from a Mauser or M1 rifle at short range might very well only wound you. Our GI's found this out against the Banzaii charging Japanese soldiers, the Rangers in Somalia discovered their nifty 'green tip' ammo went right through the enemy's bodies, leaving them pretty much functional.

That said, the Carcano 6.5 round falls into the "medium-high" category. There are more powerful rounds, but given the relatively short range of JFK to LHO, the velocity of the round was more than enough to make the wounds in question. Given the nature of FMJ rounds, which are designed not to deform (for penetration and "humanitarian' reasons) the slightly deformed state of the so-called 'pristine bullet' is no surprise.

[a_unique_person]

In case you missed it in the other JFK thread. I find this theory very plausible.

[fsol]

I saw what I assume was the ABC special with the CGI stuff, last night on BBC2. Pretty convincing if you ask me. I don't understand why people have to try and believe that one person wouldn't have motivation or opportunity to act this way on his own. People kill other people all the time with less reason. The only reason I can see that someone would want to believe in all this conspiracy stuff would be if there was a quick buck to be made. Oh, there is.

[Drooper]

I didn't see this, but I read a review and the computer generated recreation of the Zapruder film.

The thing that struck me is how bad most of the conspiracy "evidence" is.

For example, I remember seeing JFK and the seen where so much is made of the various trajectories of the bullet wounds. The so called "magic bullet" that supposedly zig-zagged through Kennedy and into Connelly was held up as definitive proof that there were more than three shots.


However, even as I was watching the movie it seemd blatently obvious to me that all the entry exit wounds would have easily lined up - allowing for a single shot to to hit multiple points.

[Rouser2]

]Originally posted by kookbreaker [/i]

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[i]Originally posted by Rouser2 [/
Funny that none of the WC's FBI sharpshooters could do it. And they didn't even have Oswald's mis-aligned scope.

-- Rouser [/B]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



>>To bad for you that they did.

>>http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/zirbel.txt

Yeah, right. That team had the mis-aligned scope. And they couldn't hit the target. None of 'em. I mean the actual target -- the head and shoulders. Fact is, no one has ever duplicated Oswald's feat using his rifle under the same conditions, the very first time with no practice. None, except Rambo, that is.

-- Rouser

[Rouser2]

Originally posted by kookbreaker


It was not pristine by any means, and what exactly do you expect from FMJ rounds? Once again your stunning lack of munitions knowledge shines through.

Hint: FMJ rounds were designed to avoid massive disformation. There's a host of reasons for this.


Funny how one of the FMJ rounds broke up in 38 pieces. The other, made it thourgh two bodies, a rib, a wrist and a leg and ended up virtually unscathed on someone else's stetcher. Do you believe in magic too?

-- Rouser

[Rouser2]

Originally posted by Drooper
I didn't see this, but I read a review and the computer generated recreation of the Zapruder film.

The thing that struck me is how bad most of the conspiracy "evidence" is.

For example, I remember seeing JFK and the seen where so much is made of the various trajectories of the bullet wounds. The so called "magic bullet" that supposedly zig-zagged through Kennedy and into Connelly was held up as definitive proof that there were more than three shots.

However, even as I was watching the movie it seemd blatently obvious to me that all the entry exit wounds would have easily lined up - allowing for a single shot to to hit multiple points.


There was no zig-zag possible. The bullet entering JFK's back never exited. The wound was probed at the autopsy and went nowhere. Had it gone somewhere, it would have had to defy the laws of physics to even make down then up to the President's throat. What is bad, is not the evidence, but the people who have altered and destroyed it.

-- Rouser

[Rouser2]

Originally posted by fsol [/i]

>>The only reason I can see that someone would want to believe in all this conspiracy stuff would be if there was a quick buck to be made.


Political conspiricies never happen in the US. Only in other countries.
ZZZZZzzzzzzzz.

[SRW]

Originally posted by Rouser2



There was no zig-zag possible. The bullet entering JFK's back never exited. The wound was probed at the autopsy and went nowhere. Had it gone somewhere, it would have had to defy the laws of physics to even make down then up to the President's throat. What is bad, is not the evidence, but the people who have altered and destroyed it.

-- Rouser

Lets try a little experiment here. Place the finger of your left hand at the base of your throat. Now place your right finger on your back so that it is even with your left finger.

Now where would a bullet, entering the back at the location of the wound to JFK, exit?

Think of what would happen to the bullet (used to kill elephants) not hitting bone at any point; it would continue to travel, at a reduced speed. The speed would be fast enough to break bone, but not fast enough to fragment.

On the other hand a bullet hitting a hard bony substance traveling at full velocity, is likely to fragment. So there we have the two bullets that hit Kennedy. No other gunman required.

[Rouser2]

Originally posted by SRW [/i]


>>Lets try a little experiment here. Place the finger of your left hand at the base of your throat. Now place your right finger on your back so that it is even with your left finger.
Now where would a bullet, entering the back at the location of the wound to JFK, exit?

Another false premise. The question is, where was the back wound bullet hole? Here is a notation made by Parkland nurse Diana Bowron made on a copy of an offical photograph alleged to be the back of President Kennedy. She writes: "This is not the back I saw." The circle around the lower arrow was made by Bowron to denote the approximate place where she saw the bulelt entry wound (from page 369, in "Killing the Truth" by Harrison Livingston.

[Rouser2]

Originally posted by SRW [/i]


>>Think of what would happen to the bullet (used to kill elephants) not hitting bone at any point; it would continue to travel, at a reduced speed. The speed would be fast enough to break bone, but not fast enough to fragment.

Unless it was a frangible bullet.


>>On the other hand a bullet hitting a hard bony substance traveling at full velocity, is likely to fragment. So there we have the two bullets that hit Kennedy. No other gunman required.

A jacketed bullet would be more likely to deform when hitting bone, not fragment. The alleged magic bullet supposedly hit Connolly's wrist bone, yet ended up virtually pristine.

-- Rouser

[fsol]

Political conspiricies never happen in the US. Only in other countries.
ZZZZZzzzzzzzz.

Really? So why are you so convinced there was a conspiracy in this case then?


Yes I know, but it is a nice big strawman Rouser2 seems to be so tired of hearing. Perhaps if he didn't make it he wouldn't be so tired. Maybe he would have enough energy for some critical thinking. Who knows?

[Rouser2]

Originally posted by fsol [/i]


>>Really? So why are you so convinced there was a conspiracy in this case then?


Already listed several in this thread. Here's one more: Sylvia Odio.

-- Rouser

[7forever]

You know, the stupid thing about Case Not Closed is that apparently the title is a reference to the Posner book Case Closed, as if they have discovered something new to call Posner into question. Yet, all they did was to trot out old Warren Report and House Select Committee on Assassination claims and try to debunk them, despite the fact that few lone gunman advocates, including Posner, actually accept them.

For example, they trotted out the "dictabelt" evidence, and got really no more in-depth than had been done at the HSCA hearings. Even aside from the fact that they totally dismiss the guy from the Dallas police department who says that the officer in question was not even in Daly Plaza, Posner addresses their claims in his book. Why didn't they rebut his rebuttal?

Similarly, both Posner and the Analysis Group (I don't recall their official name) have both shown that the seating arrangement of Kennedy and Connally at the time of the second shot was perfectly consistent with what would be needed to account for all the wounds, they still trotted out the old Cyril Wecht claim about the "magic bullet." Of course it's not clear if Wecht was relying on the more modern accepted timeline or the old Warren timeline, which has long been dismissed as inconsistent with the Z-film (for example, the timing of the second shot is now established by Connaly's "lapel flip" and "hat tilt," which the WC had not been able to discern).

What a bunch of crap. Posner isn't perfect, but jeez, he could have torn those claims to tiny little shreds without even trying.

Mr. SPECTER. In your view, which bullet caused the injury to your chest, Governor Connally?Governor CONNALLY. The second one.Mr. SPECTER. And what is your reason for that conclusion, sir?
Governor CONNALLY. Well, in my judgment, it just couldn't conceivably have been the first one because I heard the sound of the shot, In the first place, don't know anything about the velocity of this particular bullet, but any rifle has a velocity that exceeds the speed of sound, and when I heard the sound of that first shot, that bullet had already reached where I was, or it had reached that far, and after I heard that shot, I had the time to turn to my right, and start to turn to my left before I felt anything.It is not conceivable to me that I could have been hit by the first bullet, and then I felt the blow from something which was obviously a bullet, which I assumed was a bullet, and I never heard the second shot, didn't hear it. I didn't hear but two shots. I think I heard the first shot and the third shot.

Connally knew he was hit by a seperate mainly because he knew the shot that hit Kennedy came from the front, through the windshield. Connally knew what happened.;)

[7forever]

Gerald Posner is a complete idiot.:yikes:

[7forever]

John knew the truth and thought there could be as many as 4 shooters.;)

Governor CONNALLY. A very, very brief span of time. Again my trend of thought just happened to be, I suppose along this line, I immediately thought that this--that I had been shot. I knew it when I just looked down and I was covered with blood, and the thought immediately passed through my mind that there were either two or three people involved or more in this or someone was shooting with an automatic rifle. These were just thoughts that went through my mind because of the rapidity of these two, of the first shot plus the blow that I took, and I knew I had been hit, and I immediately assumed, because of the amount of blood, and in fact, that it had obviously passed through my chest. that I had probably been fatally hit.

[WildCat]

Holy zombie thread!

At any rate, it's been demonstrated over and over again that the bullet traveled in a perfectly straight line. It's even been duplicated in a mockup with dummies, Oswald's exact model rifle and identical bullets.

PZRUNYZY71g

[WildCat]

One more:

2kEh3Kgwhk0

There was no "magic bullet".