bullet hole in the windshield of JFK's limo/ You might be...

[roundhead]

TIA

[volatile]

A bullet went through the windshield.

See - it's not hard.

[roundhead]

A bullet went through the windshield.

See - it's not hard.


How is that bullet accounted for in the official story?

[SmartyPants]

It's not a bullet hole. It's a crack caused by bullet fragments from behind.

[CurtC]

SmartyPants nailed it - the crack was described by the expert who examined it as a crack, not a hole, with bits of lead stuck to the glass on the rear side of the glass. Almost like it got hit from behind with a bullet fragment or something! Wonder how that could have happened!

[roundhead]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vClwuJ0yuWM

[TK0001]

SmartyPants nailed it - the crack was described by the expert who examined it as a crack, not a hole, with bits of lead stuck to the glass on the rear side of the glass. Almost like it got hit from behind with a bullet fragment or something! Wonder how that could have happened!

http://home.comcast.net/~the-puzzle-palace/CE350.gif

Looks about right.

[TK0001]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vClwuJ0yuWM

How could anyone be able to tell by looking at an actual bullet hole in a windshield, from which direction the bullet was fired?

[roundhead]

How could anyone be able to tell by looking at an actual bullet hole in a windshield, from which direction the bullet was fired?


The fact that its there, no matter the direction, makes the official story false

[kookbreaker]

The fact that its there, no matter the direction, makes the official story false

Even if it was made by a bullet fragment?

[TK0001]

The fact that its there, no matter the direction, makes the official story false

Of course, only if you actually believe it's a bullet hole and not a crack.

The crack seems pretty high on the windshield, as well. Have you figured out where a shooter would have to be standing/flying/levitating in order to make that "hole" with a bullet and hit Kennedy in the upper left portion of his head?

[madurobob]

The fact that its there, no matter the direction, makes the official story false

Well played. Ignore the obvious explanation, rail about "the official story".

Will you please offer an explanation that makes MORE sense?

[jhunter1163]

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

No need to go anywhere other than McAdams' site for any JFK stuff.

[Holler Hoojer]

Was it checked for traces of thermite?

[Praktik]

Was it checked for traces of thermite?

If not I demand a new, open, and transparent investigation!!

[MarkCorrigan]

Was it checked for traces of thermite?

Nominated.

[Cl1mh4224rd]

And, once again, a conspiracy theorists proves that he's merely destructive, not constructive. It doesn't matter how this bit of "evidence" can be used to build a more complete understanding of the event, only that it can be used to destroy the existing understanding.

[SmartyPants]

McAdams's site is incredibly good. If you have the time and patience, you might also want to check out Vince Bugliosi's book, Reclaiming History. As far as I'm concerned, his credibility and research are impeccable.

One thing I've never understood is hiring a shooter, a shooter to kill the president, no less, who can't hit the broad side of barn. Have you been to Dealy Plaza? I have. The grassy knoll can't be much more than 40 yards away from where the president was sitting. I'm not an experienced gunman, but a couple hours of Duck Hunt would prepare me enough to at least hit a body. Did you notice that crack, not hole, is closer to the driver's side? Were they aiming for Jackie, too, or the driver (not that they'd need to hit the driver since the limo was essentially a stationary target)? Have you noticed that all the blood, brain, skull fragments and bullet fragments were all found to the front of the president's body as would be consistent with a bullet coming from the rear?

It's not even a close call. Those bullets came from the rear.

ETA: 2nd paragraph addressed to roundhead

[jhunter1163]

I've never been to Dealey Plaza, but I've seen pictures of the view Oswald had. I'm far from a marksman, but I could make that shot two out of three tries. Nothing extraordinary about the shot at all.

[SmartyPants]

The fact that its there, no matter the direction, makes the official story false

I'm hesitant about calling this woman a liar, but we don't how far away she was from the limo. She may have mistakenly thought it was a hole, depending on her vision and distance. In any case, all the photos and examinations of the window prove her assertion wrong anyway.

What I didn't like was the subtext she provided: That "a security officer of some type" noticed her viewing the limo, then drove it away to prevent the word from getting out. I guess he was in on it. Although last time I checked, law enforcement doesn't want anyone near a crime scene.

[Cl1mh4224rd]

Did you notice that crack, not hole, is closer to the driver's side? Were they aiming for Jackie, too, or the driver (not that they'd need to hit the driver since the limo was essentially a stationary target)? Have you noticed that all the blood, brain, skull fragments and bullet fragments were all found to the front of the president's body as would be consistent with a bullet coming from the rear?


It just proves that the shooter was actually in the trunk of the limo.

[mark4mark]

The United States House of Representatives Select Committee on Assassinations determined there probably was a second gunman so this "evidence" you cite carries no relevance and actually verifies the "official story."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/House_Select_Committee_on_Assassinations#General_c onclusions

[TokenMac]

http://home.comcast.net/~the-puzzle-palace/CE350.gif

Looks about right.

At that angle the shooter would have to be on the bridge over I-35 on ramp.
http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_3073049dbfaa9ddffb.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=15960)

and it would be pretty eazy to spot some one up there.

[dtugg]

The United States House of Representatives Select Committee on Assassinations determined there probably was a second gunman so this "evidence" you cite carries no relevance and actually verifies the "official story."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/House_Select_Committee_on_Assassinations#General_c onclusions

Their conclusion was based soley on the analysis of a single audio recording. It has since been discredited. Did you read the whole article or just the parts that you want to believe?

[mark4mark]

Their conclusion was based soley on the analysis of a single audio recording. It has since been discredited. Did you read the whole article or just the parts that you want to believe?

That's funny, the article continued to say:
In 2001, this criticism of the Committee's acoustic evidence was rebutted in a Science and Justice article written by D.B. Thomas, a government scientist and JFK assassination researcher. He concluded the HSCA finding of a second shooter was correct and that the NAS panel's study was flawed. Thomas surmises that the Dictaphone needle jumped and created an overdub on Channel One."

So, Did you read the whole article or just the parts that you want to believe?

I don't believe in CT's - not that I owe somebody so quick to jump off at the hip as yourself anything remotely resembling an explanation.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A56560-2001Mar25?language=printer

Does every attempt of yours to erudiate fail so miserably?

[Crungy]

That's funny, the article continued to say:
In 2001, this criticism of the Committee's acoustic evidence was rebutted in a Science and Justice article written by D.B. Thomas, a government scientist and JFK assassination researcher. He concluded the HSCA finding of a second shooter was correct and that the NAS panel's study was flawed. Thomas surmises that the Dictaphone needle jumped and created an overdub on Channel One."

So, Did you read the whole article or just the parts that you want to believe?

I don't believe in CT's - not that I owe somebody so quick to jump off at the hip as yourself anything remotely resembling an explanation.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A56560-2001Mar25?language=printer

Does every attempt of yours to erudiate fail so miserably?


http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/odell/

So, Did you read the whole article or just the parts that you want to believe?

Does every attempt of yours to erudiate fail so miserably...

[applecorped]

:(

[Hamradioguy]

Oh here we go again. A cracked windshield becomes a "bullet hole", and mystery shooters from every conceivable angle are everywhere.

Well folks, I HAVE been to Dealey Plaza. I've stood where Zapruder stood, wandered the so called "grassy knoll" (which isn't much of a knoll), inspected the fence behind which one or more shooters supposedly stood (No more than a few feet from Zapruder's location- how could he have missed muzzle blasts and bullets whizzing past his head?). I've looked at the storm drains in which other shooters were supposed to have hidden (Too small for even a midget), eyeballed the railroad overpass (from which other shooters were supposed to have been positioned), and visited Oswald's perch in the TSBD. As jhunter1163 says, "Nothing extraordinary about that shot at all".

I don't know how anyone could be a fence sitter after reading books by Posner, Jim Moore, and Bugliosi. But for anyone who might be, go to Dealey Plaza. It's a VERY small area. Try to figure out how all these mystery gunmen managed to stay hidden. And see if you can resist looking up at the 6th floor of the TSBD (You can't- everyone does this) and realizing just how easy a shot Oswald had.

[mark4mark]

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/odell/

So, Did you read the whole article or just the parts that you want to believe?

Does every attempt of yours to erudiate fail so miserably...

Yes I quickly browsed it and the conclusions and agree with them.

However, the original article I cited-which eventually prompted your "intervention"-does not mention what you linked, rendering dtuggs asking me "Did you read the whole article or just the parts that you want to believe?" a completely attack-dog move, and his disdain was unfounded and uncalled for, ergo I responded in kind.

Sorry to take the wind from your sails, but I agree with your facts, and thank you for them even with the attached (and imaginary) bravado you threw in for free...

[Crungy]

Yes I quickly browsed it and the conclusions and agree with them.

However, the original article I cited-which eventually prompted your "intervention"-does not mention what you linked, rendering dtuggs asking me "Did you read the whole article or just the parts that you want to believe?" a completely attack-dog move, and his disdain was unfounded and uncalled for, ergo I responded in kind.

Sorry to take the wind from your sails, but I agree with your facts, and thank you for them even with the attached (and imaginary) bravado you threw in for free...

\m/

I'm surprised that that Wiki hasn't been updated to include the O'Dell's refutation.

By accident I once stumbled upon Steve Barber in a prog rock forum (yeah I admit liking some prog quasi classical 20 minute opuses). He's a huge Carl Palmer fan, but also a hard core Christian right dude, which lead to some uncomfortable conversations....

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

I still can't figure out which is sillier, JFK or 9/11 crackpot theories?

[mark4mark]

\m/



I still can't figure out which is sillier, JFK or 9/11 crackpot theories?

Since the 9/11 "theories" insult so many more people, they are far more pernicious IMO.

[Crungy]

Since the 9/11 "theories" insult so many more people, they are far more pernicious IMO.

True if that's your main quack qualifier. I was reminiscing about all of the wacky and zany characters that the JFK "research" community has. Mark Lane, Jim Hoffman, Fletcher Prouty, Robert Groden, David Lifton, etc. It's been almost two decades since I immersed myself in that nuttiness, but I'd still argue that JFK nuts could still hold their own against 9/11 nuts. In the post 9/11 world people highly underrate the depths of insanity that JFK nutters are able to achieve. Don't ever underestimate a JFK nutter, they'll surprise you!

[JohnG]

Does every attempt of yours to erudiate fail so miserably?


Erudiate?

[mark4mark]

Erudiate?

To instruct; to educate; to teach.

Silly wabbit...

[madurobob]

Erudiate?

That's poseur for 'splain

[mark4mark]

True if that's your main quack qualifier. I was reminiscing about all of the wacky and zany characters that the JFK "research" community has. Mark Lane, Jim Hoffman, Fletcher Prouty, Robert Groden, David Lifton, etc. It's been almost two decades since I immersed myself in that nuttiness, but I'd still argue that JFK nuts could still hold their own against 9/11 nuts. In the post 9/11 world people highly underrate the depths of insanity that JFK nutters are able to achieve. Don't ever underestimate a JFK nutter, they'll surprise you!

Ah yes, I see. It is inherently easier to join the ranks of the 911 woo-tang given the more prevalent non-evidence-based-conjecture-potential this complex event seemingly affords, but, by virtue of that, I do see why an absolutely surprising JFK quackism could surpass that of a twoofer.

So I see your point.

[JohnG]

The word does not appear in my Webster's Unabridged Dictionary. It appears I need to sue Webster's for false advertising. On the plus side, though I learned a new word.

[CurtC]

At that angle the shooter would have to be on the bridge over I-35 on ramp.

Which, by the way, is a railroad bridge and not a bridge for cars, making people on it even more conspicuous.

[SmartyPants]

\m/

I'm surprised that that Wiki hasn't been updated to include the O'Dell's refutation.

By accident I once stumbled upon Steve Barber in a prog rock forum (yeah I admit liking some prog quasi classical 20 minute opuses). He's a huge Carl Palmer fan, but also a hard core Christian right dude, which lead to some uncomfortable conversations....

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

I still can't figure out which is sillier, JFK or 9/11 crackpot theories?

King Crimson is all kinds of awesome.

Anyway, in terms of sheer creativity and entertaining storylines, I think JFK wins hands down. I often grow tiresome of the 9/11 stuff, but I rarely get bored with JFK theories.

Of course, this is just personal preference. Interestingly enough, 9/11 is what got me posting here in the first place.

Oh yeah, just to stay on topic, those three bullets came from the rear.

[SmartyPants]

True if that's your main quack qualifier. I was reminiscing about all of the wacky and zany characters that the JFK "research" community has. Mark Lane, Jim Hoffman, Fletcher Prouty, Robert Groden, David Lifton, etc. It's been almost two decades since I immersed myself in that nuttiness, but I'd still argue that JFK nuts could still hold their own against 9/11 nuts. In the post 9/11 world people highly underrate the depths of insanity that JFK nutters are able to achieve. Don't ever underestimate a JFK nutter, they'll surprise you!

That's so true. Do you think anyone's going to remember Dylan Avery 10 years from now? The guys you mentioned have been well known in conspiracy circles for longer than I've been alive, in part because of their personalities.

[TK0001]

At that angle the shooter would have to be on the bridge over I-35 on ramp.
http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_3073049dbfaa9ddffb.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=15960)

and it would be pretty eazy to spot some one up there.

I thought about the bridge, but the angle still doesn't seem right. Also, why shoot someone who is sitting in a open topped convertible, which will be passing below you, through the windshield, especially when the rearview mirror is in the way?

Setting common sense aside, it still seems the angle isn't right. The crack in the windshield is about the same height as where Kennedy's head was, plus or minus a few inches. I would say to execute that shot, the shooter would have to be standing, or even crouching, right in front of the limo.

If only there existed a video tape or pictures or eyewitness testimony that show an assassin idiotic enough to stand in the middle of the street and shoot the president....

[CurtC]

True if that's your main quack qualifier. I was reminiscing about all of the wacky and zany characters that the JFK "research" community has. Mark Lane, Jim Hoffman, Fletcher Prouty, Robert Groden, David Lifton, etc.

You forgot Jim Fetzer! He was a prominent and zany JFK kook long before he was a 9/11 kook.

[RoboTimbo]

How could anyone be able to tell by looking at an actual bullet hole in a windshield, from which direction the bullet was fired?

Windshields are two pieces of glass laminated with plastic in between. Only the outside glass was cracked directly opposite a smattering of lead residue left on the inside of the windshield. There was no "bullet hole" in the windshield.

ETA: Maybe the "magic bullet" that is spoken of is the one shot from the front, caromed over the top of the windshield, ricocheted off the president's head, and smacked into the inside of the windshield, cracking it.

[CurtC]

RoboTimbo, I think TK understood that, but he was posing a question about Evalea Glanges' story in the YouTube link. She said that she looked at the limo and saw a hole.

Of course, it would be easy for a person to make a mistake like that, seeing a crack and thinking it was a through-hole, and of course the Secret Service or FBI would move the limo away from gawkers - it's evidence from a crime scene and a personal tragedy for those involved. The YouTube segment made no important points.

But to answer TK's question - it would be easy to tell which direction the bullet came from by looking at a hole, or even a crack, in the windshield, if you could examine it closely. The glass will bevel the hole in the direction of the bullet travel, so that the exit side will be wider than the entry side. Or, if it didn't go all the way through, you may see a crater on the opposite side from where the bullet hit.

[TK0001]

But to answer TK's question - it would be easy to tell which direction the bullet came from by looking at a hole, or even a crack, in the windshield, if you could examine it closely. The glass will bevel the hole in the direction of the bullet travel, so that the exit side will be wider than the entry side. Or, if it didn't go all the way through, you may see a crater on the opposite side from where the bullet hit.

Thanks. I guess it's not as difficult as I first thought.

[CurtC]

Here's an example of a through-hole made by a bullet, and you can see the beveling:
http://www.shutterstock.com/pic-1356975.html

Even if it doesn't go through, it still will bevel the back side:
http://www.stevensglass.net/Images/crack.jpg

[madurobob]

Here's an example of a through-hole made by a bullet, and you can see the beveling:
http://www.shutterstock.com/pic-1356975.html

Even if it doesn't go through, it still will bevel the back side:
http://www.stevensglass.net/Images/crack.jpg

Anyone who has ever owned a BB gun knows this effect well.

[BenBurch]

It was Colonel Mustard who did it! With the lead bullet! From the Overpass!

I WIN!!!!

[IMST]

Obviously the driver planted the bullet fragments in order to distract everyone from the shooter standing on Zapruder's sholders.

[tsig]

It was Colonel Mustard who did it! With the lead bullet! From the Overpass!

I WIN!!!!

Of course Prof. Plum was the brains behind the plot and Miss Scarlet used her womanly wiles to distract at the crucial moment.

Something is rotten in the Conservatory!!

[madurobob]

Obviously the driver planted the bullet fragments in order to distract everyone from the shooter standing on Zapruder's sholders.
He would have had to plant them mighty hard in that windshield to make that crack!

[I Ratant]

There was no penetration of the windshield.
The third bullet, its impact seen in the Zapruder film frame 313, went forward, impacted the chrome edging for the windshield, fragmented there, some pieces going into the right front seat area of the car, some cracking the windshield, and one piece going over the windshield to strike a spectator standing near the underpass on Main Street.
Anyone taking the time to gather the actual information available... the Zapruder film, the Warren Commission Report, the House Select Committee on Assassintions report, all available on CD, and understanding these, cannot in all conscience accept any of the conspiracy theories, all of which fall flat on their asses when compared to the actual information.

[I Ratant]

...
Setting common sense aside,
....
.
As with 9/11, that's the first step one must take to find a conspiracy.
Too many people are too willing to do that very thing!

[IMST]

He would have had to plant them mighty hard in that windshield to make that crack!

Obvoiusly the driver was a robot.

[madurobob]

Obvoiusly the driver was a robot.

Y'know, if the driver was a T1000 cyborg made out of that liquid memory metal stuff, it would explain a LOT.

[roundhead]

There was no penetration of the windshield.
The third bullet, its impact seen in the Zapruder film frame 313, went forward, impacted the chrome edging for the windshield, fragmented there, some pieces going into the right front seat area of the car, some cracking the windshield, and one piece going over the windshield to strike a spectator standing near the underpass on Main Street.
Anyone taking the time to gather the actual information available... the Zapruder film, the Warren Commission Report, the House Select Committee on Assassintions report, all available on CD, and understanding these, cannot in all conscience accept any of the conspiracy theories, all of which fall flat on their asses when compared to the actual information.


The lady i linked to on the youtube video at Parkland(a doctor and gun affeciondo)seems very credible, as do several others who saw the windshield in Detriot, and in fact removed it. They all state there was a clean unmistakable bullet hole in the glass, independant of what you are referring to.

[roundhead]

Obvoiusly the driver was a robot.


No robot at all.

He actually brought the limo to a stop, took his left hand off the wheel, shot Kennedy in the head from over his right shoulder, then sped up the limo and drove off. And ended up in Johnson's White house for his work.

Very clever, and the way the Zapruder film has been edited to make this harder to see is quite laughable.

[mark4mark]

No robot at all.

He actually brought the limo to a stop, took his left hand off the wheel, shot Kennedy in the head from over his right shoulder, then sped up the limo and drove off. And ended up in Johnson's White house for his work.

Very clever, and the way the Zapruder film has been edited to make this harder to see is quite laughable.
:jaw-dropp

[IMST]

No robot at all.

He actually brought the limo to a stop, took his left hand off the wheel, shot Kennedy in the head from over his right shoulder, then sped up the limo and drove off. And ended up in Johnson's White house for his work.

Very clever, and the way the Zapruder film has been edited to make this harder to see is quite laughable.

um...Poe?

[Drudgewire]

Bill Hicks loved the driver theory.

"It makes sense, after all who ever looks at the driver in that clip? We're all watching the same thing...

...Jackie's ass as she jumps in the back seat. " :newlol

[CurtC]

The lady i linked to on the youtube video at Parkland(a doctor and gun affeciondo)seems very credible
If by "credible" you mean that she doesn't seem like she is lying, I wholeheartedly agree. However, I don't see how she could tell that it was a through-hole unless she looked at it closely - a beveled crack would look like a hole from a few feet away - and I don't think she was allowed closer than that. It's just that her description doesn't carry much weight because she wasn't in a position to accurately observe what she thought she saw.


...as do several others who saw the windshield in Detriot, and in fact removed it. They all state there was a clean unmistakable bullet hole in the glass, independant of what you are referring to.

Care to name names? The expert who examined it hands-on said there was no hole, and we have his full account.

[RoboTimbo]

The lady i linked to on the youtube video at Parkland(a doctor and gun affeciondo)seems very credible, as do several others who saw the windshield in Detriot, and in fact removed it. They all state there was a clean unmistakable bullet hole in the glass, independant of what you are referring to.

How do you find her to be credible if she states she saw a through and through hole going from front to back? If there were a through hole, how did she determine the direction of the bullet causing it?

How do you find her to be credible when the actual windshield was brought into the Warren Commission for examination and they saw a wagon wheel crack?

[roundhead]

Bill Hicks loved the driver theory.

"It makes sense, after all who ever looks at the driver in that clip? We're all watching the same thing...

...Jackie's ass as she jumps in the back seat. " :newlol


Its no theory at all. The un tampered with Zapruder film shows it quite clearly.

Its a fact he brought the limo to a stop, its a fact he took his left hand off the wheel. Its a fact he turned toward the back (looking over his right shoulder at Kennedy)holding a .45. And its a fact he shot him.

It also seems to be a fact he and his buddy riding in the front seat switched the presidents body out of one casket and into another at Parkland, and were allowed to be alone by themselves with the body to be able to do so.

Nobody in their right mind would trust a so-so shooter with a cheap gun to shoot him with very low probability of sucess.

That day wasnt to be a warning to Kennedy, it was a day he was to be killed, with nothing left to chance.

The secret service being ordered to jump off his car right before this happened reinforces the inside job it truly was.

[RoboTimbo]

Its no theory at all. The un tampered with Zapruder film shows it quite clearly.

Its a fact he brough the limo to a stop, its a fcat he took his left hand off the wheel. Its a fact he turned toward the back (looking over his right shoulder at Kennedy)holding a .45. And its a fact he shot him.

It also seems to be a fcat he and his buddy riding in the front seat switched the presidents body out of one casket and into another at Parkland, and were allowed to be alone by themselves with the body to be able to do so.

People who still think Oswald is the lone gunman who killed JFK show me how the sheep ish our country is, and will likely remain.

A link to that video showing all this gun play, please?

I have one for you (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1BPyhsW_CNI&feature=related).

[Drudgewire]

It is a theory, and a poor one at that. When I was knee-deep in the world of William Cooper I was a proponent of the driver theory. Then my boss at the time, a former producer for 60 Minutes, showed me a non-overexposed version of the Zapruder film.

That ended that.

[roundhead]

How do you find her to be credible if she states she saw a through and through hole going from front to back? If there were a through hole, how did she determine the direction of the bullet causing it?

How do you find her to be credible when the actual windshield was brought into the Warren Commission for examination and they saw a wagon wheel crack?


The actual windshield??

Then why yank away from and expose a young kids camera film that showed the bullet hole if there was nothing to hide, at Parkland.

[roundhead]

A link to that video showing all this gun play, please?

I have one for you (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1BPyhsW_CNI&feature=related).



In that "version" of the film, the agent in the passenger seat has had his head"rearranged" to non human extremes,(ie his head is way to tall, its not like the actual agents head) to hide the gun.

Even if you question this, the driver 100% stopped the car(after secret service had been ordered off of it) took his left hand off the wheel, and looked over his right shoulder. At that instant the Presidents head blew up.

Everything fits, you merely need to see the gun, and they have done a poor job of hiding it.

[RoboTimbo]

The actual windshield??

Then why yank away from and expose a young kids camera film that showed the bullet hole if there was nothing to hide, at Parkland.

Yes, the actual windshield (http://www.archives.gov/research/jfk/warren-commission-report/chapter-3.html). Scroll down to page 77. How about your video of gunplay?

[SmartyPants]

Yet nobody has witnessed the driver shooting the president. Interesting. Does it seem just a little silly, roundhead, that if there was a plan to shoot the president, that a secret service agent shooting him in plain view of everybody might be kind of obvious?

Also, how does this explain the "bullet hole" in the windshield?

[Drudgewire]

Yet nobody has witnessed the driver shooting the president. Interesting. Does it seem just a little silly, roundhead, that if there was a plan to shoot the president, that a secret service agent shooting him in plain view of everybody might be kind of obvious?


It's just like the plane which "hit the Pentagon." Here at NWO Central, we're REALLY into magic tricks.

Here, pick a card...

[roundhead]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VR1f6WRRhd0

[RoboTimbo]

Ah yes, the infamous sun glint off the chrome. Can you point out the gun, though?

[Drudgewire]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VR1f6WRRhd0


Thanks for the crystal clear footage of the driver NOT SHOOTING THE PRESIDENT!

[roundhead]

When you enlarge a still frame, although you loose sharpness of detail, you notice things that aren't apparent when viewed as a normal sized photo. I noticed that the top-of-the head hairline of Roy Kellerman seems to have been doctored to appear higher than it actually was, in order to give the impression that his "hair" meets the bottom of the gun and lead you to think that the gun was just a glint of reflection off the top of Kellerman's head-as many deceived viewers claim on the blogs attending the on-line videos. .


From............http://educate-yourself.org/cn/drivergreershotjfk.shtml

[Donal]

In that "version" of the film, the agent in the passenger seat has had his head"rearranged" to non human extremes,(ie his head is way to tall, its not like the actual agents head) to hide the gun.

Wow, don't hurt yourself reaching that far.

And you see both of his hands in that frame.

Even if you question this, the driver 100% stopped the car(after secret service had been ordered off of it) took his left hand off the wheel, and looked over his right shoulder. At that instant the Presidents head blew up.

Everything fits, you merely need to see the gun, and they have done a poor job of hiding it.Where is the gun?

And do you know who gave the order for the USSS to loosen the coverage on Kennedy?

And if the driver was the shooter, why pull back the detail anyway?

[RoboTimbo]

When you enlarge a still frame, although you loose sharpness of detail, you notice things that aren't apparent when viewed as a normal sized photo. I noticed that the top-of-the head hairline of Roy Kellerman seems to have been doctored to appear higher than it actually was, in order to give the impression that his "hair" meets the bottom of the gun and lead you to think that the gun was just a glint of reflection off the top of Kellerman's head-as many deceived viewers claim on the blogs attending the on-line videos. .


From............http://educate-yourself.org/cn/drivergreershotjfk.shtml

Is there something particular you want to direct attention to at that site? I'm not reading the whole thing.

[Donal]

He wants you to look at some pictures that are more pixelated than an Atari 2600 game.

[roundhead]

Yet nobody has witnessed the driver shooting the president. Interesting. Does it seem just a little silly, roundhead, that if there was a plan to shoot the president, that a secret service agent shooting him in plain view of everybody might be kind of obvious?

Also, how does this explain the "bullet hole" in the windshield?

The others didnt get the job done, the driver did.

People were on record saying they smelled gunpowder in the car, and a firecracker sound from the car.

Who was the driver in plain view of, he did it mighty quickly, and it was real hard to see obviously.

With other shots having rang out, everybody was looking at JFK, not the driver, its great sleight of hand.

[RoboTimbo]

It's even greater slight of mind.

ETA: I think the subject of this thread is a bullet hole in a windshield?

[roundhead]

Wow, don't hurt yourself reaching that far.

And you see both of his hands in that frame.

Where is the gun?

And do you know who gave the order for the USSS to loosen the coverage on Kennedy?

And if the driver was the shooter, why pull back the detail anyway?

Because the others didnt shoot him, and obviously were surprised they were taken off the car, the upraised hands clearly show this.

BTW, the guy who threw his hands up in disgust had a heart attack in his 30's for his troubles

[TK0001]

roundhead,

Just to get this straight, you believe the driver shot Kennedy....and someone else fired a shot through the windshield? I'm also assuming you believe there was at least one shot from behind....so were there three shooters total?

[RoboTimbo]

Are we finished with this thread? Roundhead, you didn't appear to know that the windshield was examined by the Warren Commission and it showed a wagon wheel crack pattern, not a hole.

I would further mention that Evalea Glanges is not on the official witness list as testifying before the Warren Commission.

[Donal]

So, the others wouldn't know the sound of a .45 caliber pistol firing 10 feet away from them (a .45 does NOT sound like a fire cracker)? They wouldn't notice Kennedy's face not being there (which would have been the result if your theory were true)? They wouldn't see the smoke?

You obviously have no idea how a gun works.

[RoboTimbo]

So, the others wouldn't know the sound of a .45 caliber pistol firing 10 feet away from them (a .45 does NOT sound like a fire cracker)? They wouldn't notice Kennedy's face not being there (which would have been the result if your theory were true)? They wouldn't see the smoke?

You obviously have no idea how a gun works.

That was my next tack of discussion but I thought it might go better in another thread. How about, where did the spent casing go?

[Drudgewire]

How about, where did the spent casing go?


For that matter, you should be able to see it exiting the gun in the footage.

Of course, that would require seeing a gun and all...

[RoboTimbo]

For that matter, you should be able to see it exiting the gun in the footage.

Of course, that would require seeing a gun and all...

It's beyond me why they have to insist on it being a .45. That could only come from someone who has never fired a .45. And to think, I hardly ever check out what's going on in CT. JFK CT's are easy.

[Drudgewire]

It's beyond me why they have to insist on it being a .45.


Well, because a 1911 is what a Secret Service agent would be likely be carrying in that situation. And of course the driver would be following proper protocol.

Except for the whole "don't murder the guy you're assigned to protect" thing. :p

[Donal]

We all know the proper pistol for government sanctioned covert assassinations is the Walter PPK.

[RoboTimbo]

If you're non-government sanctioned, you have to settle for a Mannlicher-Carcano. Damnably difficult to conceal.

[I Ratant]

If you're non-government sanctioned, you have to settle for a Mannlicher-Carcano. Damnably difficult to conceal.
.
Use the bag..

[RoboTimbo]

.
Use the bag..

Haven't you heard? Curtain rods were in the bag. It's an eternal mystery how the rifle got into the building. Or how Oswald shot JFK with a curtain rod.

[I Ratant]

Altgens #5..
JFK has been shot thru the back.
The head shot is coming.
The Secret Service Cadillac is right on the bumper of the Lincoln.
The two cycle cops at the left rear of the Lincoln at looking at JFK.. (and not at the Grassy Knoll, as another wildeyed CTer "proves").
The cycle cop to the right of the Lincoln is looking back at JFK.
Two agents on the right side of the Cadillac are looking to the rear, from where they heard the shots come from. (2 at that time.)
For the Lincoln to have slowed down and stopped for its driver to shoot JFK, ALL the vehicles following would have to stop as that stop accordioned back thru the motorcade.
Didn't happen.

[I Ratant]

The limosine speed, Zapruder film frames 289 thru 311.
The position of Mary Moorman in the infield related to the motion of the limosine as it passed..
The difference in Moorman's position frame-to-frame is constant.
Had the limosine slowed down, her position would not be constant, and begin to overlap and merge had the car stopped.
.
And the last three film frames of the sequence...
Moorman is to the left of Jean Hill, who claims that at THAT time, she was standing in the middle of Elm Street, yelling at Jackie. (see Jack White's "Zapruder film hoax" video.)

[RoboTimbo]

To get back on this thread's topic, TK's pic in post #7 is the picture of the actual windshield in the actual limo showing the wagon wheel cracking. It is CE (Commission Exhibit) #350 in Volume 16 of the Warren Commission hearings (http://www.aarclibrary.org/publib/contents/wc/contents_wh16.htm). You'll have to scroll down to CE#350.

No hole.

[TK0001]

To get back on this thread's topic, TK's pic in post #7 is the picture of the actual windshield in the actual limo showing the wagon wheel cracking. It is CE (Commission Exhibit) #350 in Volume 16 of the Warren Commission hearings (http://www.aarclibrary.org/publib/contents/wc/contents_wh16.htm). You'll have to scroll down to CE#350.

No hole.

Here's a closer close up:



http://home.comcast.net/~the-puzzle-palace/CE350W.gif

[TK0001]

roundhead,

Just to get this straight, you believe the driver shot Kennedy....and someone else fired a shot through the windshield? I'm also assuming you believe there was at least one shot from behind....so were there three shooters total?

Bump.

Roundhead, could you please clarify this?

[CurtC]

He's just asking questions, man!

[roundhead]

Bump.

Roundhead, could you please clarify this?



I dont know how many shooters there were, two certainly(the driver) and the shot which he took in the adam's apple from the front(another shooter independant of the driver) So at least two, perhaps more.My opinion is 3 or more.

[RoboTimbo]

I dont know how many shooters there were, two certainly(the driver) and the shot which he took in the adam's apple from the front(another shooter independant of the driver) So at least two, perhaps more.My opinion is 3 or more.

In your favor, there is no requirement to provide evidence to support an opinion.

[RoboTimbo]

Reality devoid of emotional opinion indicates that there was only one shooter, Lee Harvey Oswald. He fired three shots from a Mannlicher-Carcano rifle from the sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository. One shot missed.

Warren Commission conclusions (http://www.archives.gov/research/jfk/warren-commission-report/chapter-1.html#conclusions)

You may wish to skip down to page 18.

[dudalb]

I dont know how many shooters there were, two certainly(the driver) and the shot which he took in the adam's apple from the front(another shooter independant of the driver) So at least two, perhaps more.My opinion is 3 or more.





http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_1884048ca062020e8b.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=13773)

Even most people who believe the JFK Conspiracy crap would laugh at that.

[TK0001]

I dont know how many shooters there were, two certainly(the driver) and the shot which he took in the adam's apple from the front(another shooter independant of the driver) So at least two, perhaps more.My opinion is 3 or more.

So, it is of your opinion that:

1. A mystery gunman shot from somewhere in front of the limo, through the windshield, and into Kennedy's adam's apple, deftly avoiding the rearview mirror, the driver, the other secret service agent, the governor, and the governor's seat, in broad daylight, while somehow avoiding detection from anyone on the scene.

2. Oswald shot from the 6th floor of the TSBD. Since the governor and Kennedy both reacted at the same time to their respective wounds, Oswald and the front shooter somehow timed their shots with absolute perfect precision.

3. A few seconds later, the driver deliberately stopped the limo, turned around, and fired the shot which exploded the front of Kennedy's head, also miraculously escaping detection.

Does this pretty well sum up your theory of what happened in Dealy Plaza that day? Any other shooters we need to examine? The grassy knoll shooter, perhaps? Maybe the umbrella man?

[SmartyPants]

roundhead,

Can you tell us what kind of gun Greer used for the fatal head shot? Can you explain why the head wound is consistent with a shot coming from behind (http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/exploded.htm) and from a 6.5x52mm Carcano cartridge? (http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/firearms_hsca.htm#149)

We'll wait.

[JohnG]

I dont know how many shooters there were, two certainly(the driver) and the shot which he took in the adam's apple from the front(another shooter independant of the driver) So at least two, perhaps more.My opinion is 3 or more.


Let's say that your basic premise is correct and that the "real" conspirators wanted to leave nothing to chance and so had multiple shooters stationed at various points around Dealy Plaza. They'd presumably have chosen Oswald because he was a nobody who nevertheless had ties to the Soviet Union and Cuba, but no ties, explicit or otherwise to the US Government (aside from his time in the service). Wouldn't the conspirators have employed other "patsies" with the same status/background so that there'd be no explicit ties to the Government? Once you start claiming that the cops, secret service agents and the limo driver are in on it what's the point of pointing the finger at the cipher that was Oswald? How does that make a lick of sense in your mind?

I'm hoping that someday, though I doubt it will be anytime soon, but someday you will realize just how ferociously stupid this theory of yours is. I'm tempted to call it Inspector Clouseau level stupid, but that would be quite unfair.



To Clouseau, I mean. After all, he actually solved some cases.

[roundhead]

Reality devoid of emotional opinion indicates that there was only one shooter, Lee Harvey Oswald. He fired three shots from a Mannlicher-Carcano rifle from the sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository. One shot missed.

Warren Commission conclusions (http://www.archives.gov/research/jfk/warren-commission-report/chapter-1.html#conclusions)

You may wish to skip down to page 18.

As soon as you link to the Warren Commision, you lose ALL credibility

[I Ratant]

This head wound, this one here, the ONLY wound in the back of the head.
The exit wound in the upper right of the skull shows the bullet passed from inside to outside. The beveling of the skull notch shows this .

[I Ratant]

As soon as you link to the Warren Commision, you lose ALL credibility
.
What could possibly be your source(s)?
Lifton?
Lane?
Their "credibility" has no status in the real world.

[SmartyPants]

No robot at all.

He actually brought the limo to a stop, took his left hand off the wheel, shot Kennedy in the head from over his right shoulder, then sped up the limo and drove off. And ended up in Johnson's White house for his work.

The driver was William Greer, a secret service agent. Can you tell us what he ended up doing in Johnson's White House for his work?

[RoboTimbo]

As soon as you link to the Warren Commision, you lose ALL credibility

You found Evalea Glanges to be credible. I think the Warren Commission can stand your credibility test.

[brobradh77]

Here is my take on the "conspiracy"....I really enjoy JFK discussions...OK first off Oswald was very capable of making those shots in the time frames without really rushing. Remember the first shot is at 0 sec...and from what i have seen of his military shooting records this was not a difficult shot for him..

Now the only thing I am uncomfortable with is the driver of the limo..not because i think he shot the pres...BUT because all police/protection detail are trained that if they hear shots fired you immediatley throw it in reverse...Snipers have a kill zone and the second your in it he takes the shot....That is why they are trained to throw it in reverse and get out of the kill zone..if the sniper could have taken a shot sooner he would have...That has always bothered me as to why the driver continued to drive thru the kill zone.

[Matthew Best]

all police/protection detail are trained that if they hear shots fired you immediatley throw it in reverse.

Got a cite for this? I have never heard of it before.

[JohnG]

Thrown it into reverse and struck the car a couple of feet immediately behind it or hit the motorcycle cops along side of it???

[SmartyPants]

Now the only thing I am uncomfortable with is the driver of the limo..not because i think he shot the pres...BUT because all police/protection detail are trained that if they hear shots fired you immediatley throw it in reverse...Snipers have a kill zone and the second your in it he takes the shot....That is why they are trained to throw it in reverse and get out of the kill zone..if the sniper could have taken a shot sooner he would have...That has always bothered me as to why the driver continued to drive thru the kill zone.

Where is the protocol for such a situation? At what point would it make sense to run over the motorcade behind you, putting their lives in danger, and then putting yourself and the president back into the line of fire? Unless I'm missing something, the best thing to do was to get on Stemmons Freeway and hightail it to the nearest hospital.

Maybe Greer's reaction time wasn't the greatest, but here's testimony (http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/59wit.htm) explaining why he reacted the way he did (near the bottom of the page). I don't think there's anything real incriminating there, though.

ETA: The testimony is part of an overall list of sources explaining why the car slowed down. The list was compiled by conspiracy-oriented author, Vince Palamara.

[I Ratant]

Looking at the Zapruder film frame by frame, and comparing the position of the limosine to fixed objects in the field of view... Jean Hill and Mary Moorman didn't move during the shooting, the limosine speed is constant until -after- the third shot.
The car never slows down, and certainly never stopped.

[jhunter1163]

As soon as you link to the Warren Commision, you lose ALL credibility

I claim the Stundie for this one.

[brobradh77]

DOH! I had this nice lengthy response but i quoted someone with a URL and it voided my post..lol

Long story short...Dad was a cop and worked security detail when politicians came to town was trained in the academy and by secret service how to react in those situations. SO you would expect that if they trained police etc.. to protect lower level politicians the training for the ones protecting the president should be unriveled and more exacting...

In this assasination not one secret service guy jumped to shield the president. Isn't that what they are paid to do? or were they paid to do something else that day?

[SmartyPants]

Looking at the Zapruder film frame by frame, and comparing the position of the limosine to fixed objects in the field of view... Jean Hill and Mary Moorman didn't move during the shooting, the limosine speed is constant until -after- the third shot.
The car never slows down, and certainly never stopped.

Your point is well taken. The car never stopped. Never. According to testimony though, the car does slow down to about 7 or 8 mph before the final shot. However, since the car was going 11mph immediately before and all the way down Elm Street, the slow down was negligible and didn't give Oswald much more of an advantage than he already had.

Bugliosi, Reclaiming History (315n, 350n).

Conspiracists often overemphasize the slow down as if it were a stop, which it's not

[Cl1mh4224rd]

DOH! I had this nice lengthy response but i quoted someone with a URL and it voided my post..lol


Yeah. Once you hit 15 posts you can include links. (I think the message you got tells you this, so you probably know by now, but I'm not sure.) Anyway, you can still place URLs in your posts, but they won't be hyperlinked. If you want to post http://www.example.com/check-it-out.html, just use example.com/check-it-out.html.

[brobradh77]

Yeah it told me the 15 post rule..eliminating my nice story..lol

[RoboTimbo]

I claim the Stundie for this one.

I second the nomination.

[SmartyPants]

DOH! I had this nice lengthy response but i quoted someone with a URL and it voided my post..lol

Long story short...Dad was a cop and worked security detail when politicians came to town was trained in the academy and by secret service how to react in those situations. SO you would expect that if they trained police etc.. to protect lower level politicians the training for the ones protecting the president should be unriveled and more exacting...

In this assasination not one secret service guy jumped to shield the president. Isn't that what they are paid to do? or were they paid to do something else that day?

First of all, while this might be protocol in some situations, I doubt this holds true for every situation. If it does now, it doesn't appear to be the case in 1963. There's no evidence or testimony suggesting that reversing the car would be the correct maneuver. To the contrary, all testimony from the Secret Service suggests that hitting the gas and finding the nearest hospital was the top priority. Furthermore, as stated before by me and JohnG, it makes little to zero sense to back up, hit the rest of the motorcade blocking any exit, and then put everyone else in danger.

Secondly, Clint Hill, the agent assigned to protect the First Lady, did indeed jump onto the limo and used his body to shield the president. The reason you did not see any agents on the limousine is because the President requested that they not do so. Likewise, he also requested not to have the bubble top attached against their advice (http://www.archives.gov/research/jfk/warren-commission-report/chapter-2.html#organization). If he had followed the Secret Service's advice, he may very be alive today.

Clearly, the Secret Service is not guilty of murder.

[I Ratant]

Your point is well taken. The car never stopped. Never. According to testimony though, the car does slow down to about 7 or 8 mph before the final shot. However, since the car was going 11mph immediately before and all the way down Elm Street, the slow down was negligible and didn't give Oswald much more of an advantage than he already had.

Bugliosi, Reclaiming History (315n, 350n).

Conspiracists often overemphasize the slow down as if it were a stop, which it's not
.
Zapruder film sequences relating the car position in each frame to fixed items in the infield.
The rate of change of position (velocity) is pretty constant between each frame, during this sequence.
(red line between each frame and an infield object)

[SmartyPants]

.
Zapruder film sequences relating the car position in each frame to fixed items in the infield.
The rate of change of position (velocity) is pretty constant between each frame, during this sequence.

I understand where you're going with this. From what I've read, there was a slow down, but that slow down (if there was one; I'll concede that there might not have been) was so negligible that it made virtually no difference to shooter, Oswald. When I view the video, I see a very slight slow down, but it really made no difference, and that can seen in the video by observing the positioning of Hill and Moorman.

ETA: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OvbvvAYimgM

[I Ratant]

I understand where you're going with this. From what I've read, there was a slow down, but that slow down (if there was one; I'll concede that there might not have been) was so negligible that it made virtually no difference to shooter, Oswald. When I view the video, I see a very slight slow down, but it really made no difference, and that can seen in the video by observing the positioning of Hill and Moorman.

ETA: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OvbvvAYimgM
.
Here's a rough plot for the film frames during the third shot.... :)

[brobradh77]

Damnit that URL did it to me again..lol

I'll make my point simple.

You are walking, driving, whatever...You get to a certain spot and you hear a gun shot in your area....Sniper fire...you dont know where he is but you do know he did not fire at you until you were at that point..so what do you do? Back to a spot he didnt take a shot because there wasnt one..or continue forward knowing he know has you in his sights?

Snipers work on opportunity..if oswald had a shot sooner he would have taken it..As far as putting everyone else in danger..lets see..the cars were moving so slow anyone with a pulse could have got out of the way and to be brutally honest the gov't values the presidents life more than yours or mine...

I feel they did not respond corrrectly and I would be willing to bet that the protocal for sniper fire is never to drive into it. Does not matter if it is 2009 or 1963 my dad was a cop in the 70's.

[I Ratant]

Had the limosine slowed and stopped per the CT fantasy, the position changes in the Zapruder film would have looked like this....
Its position change relative to the fixed objects would diminish to zero, and then begin changing again as the limosine began to move.
This doesn't happen.
It just doesn't!

[SmartyPants]

.
Here's a rough plot for the film frames during the third shot.... :)

That's a good graphic. You understand that I'm not saying the car stopped, right?

[WildCat]

Damnit that URL did it to me again..lol

I'll make my point simple.

You are walking, driving, whatever...You get to a certain spot and you hear a gun shot in your area....Sniper fire...you dont know where he is but you do know he did not fire at you until you were at that point..so what do you do? Back to a spot he didnt take a shot because there wasnt one..or continue forward knowing he know has you in his sights?

Snipers work on opportunity..if oswald had a shot sooner he would have taken it..As far as putting everyone else in danger..lets see..the cars were moving so slow anyone with a pulse could have got out of the way and to be brutally honest the gov't values the presidents life more than yours or mine...

I feel they did not respond corrrectly and I would be willing to bet that the protocal for sniper fire is never to drive into it. Does not matter if it is 2009 or 1963 my dad was a cop in the 70's.
You do know the shots came from the rear, don't you?

[SmartyPants]

Damnit that URL did it to me again..lol

I'll make my point simple.

You are walking, driving, whatever...You get to a certain spot and you hear a gun shot in your area....Sniper fire...you dont know where he is but you do know he did not fire at you until you were at that point..so what do you do? Back to a spot he didnt take a shot because there wasnt one..or continue forward knowing he know has you in his sights?.

Actually, this makes things very confusing. Are you saying that if someone is shooting at me, I should move backward? Back to the spot he was aiming at me? Back to a spot where there's no exit? Back to a spot where I run into other cars, therby putting other lives in danger too?

Look, if someone's shooting at you, and you're in car, and you move forward to a freeway at 100mph toward a hospital, you're telling me it's better to move backward? Where should the rest of the motorcade back up, and how far? Are you going to provide evidence of this protocol and show that it was protocol on 11/22/63? Did you read the links I provided in the prior post?

They weren't driving into sniper fire, by moving forward -quickly-onto Stemmons Freeway, the were moving out of it.


I feel they did not respond corrrectly

Are you saying that the Secret Service is guilty of murder here? I hope not, because they provided the president plenty of protection that day (offering to ride on the limo, providing the bubbletop)

and I would be willing to bet that the protocal for sniper fire is never to drive into it. Does not matter if it is 2009 or 1963 my dad was a cop in the 70's.

Again, Greer wasn't driving into sniper fire. He was driving away from it without obstruction...by getting onto the freeway...fast

Actually, it does matter when this takes place. You're saying it's protocol, which means there's some kind of body, I guess, that decides what to do in case of an assassination attempt. So, when did this policy begin? Since when is not policy to find the nearest exit?

Also, I'd appreciate it if you could respond to the answers I gave you before:

You: In this assasination not one secret service guy jumped to shield the president. Isn't that what they are paid to do? or were they paid to do something else that day?

Me: Clint Hill, the agent assigned to protect the First Lady, did indeed jump onto the limo and used his body to shield the president. The reason you did not see any agents on the limousine is because the President requested that they not do so. Likewise, he also requested not to have the bubble top attached against their advice. If he had followed the Secret Service's advice, he may very be alive today.

Be sure to check the link from before. If you're suggesting that they were paid off to not protect the president, why so? And where's your evidence?

[SmartyPants]

You do know the shots came from the rear, don't you?

Exactly. Thanks for simplifying my point.

[dtugg]

Wow, three different shooters at Dealy Plaza, one being the driver? I guess I shouldn't be surprised that roundhead believes that. He does believe in much stupider crap.

[I Ratant]

That's a good graphic. You understand that I'm not saying the car stopped, right?
.
You haven't, but Ctwinkies say that all the time.

[I Ratant]

Wow, three different shooters at Dealy Plaza, one being the driver? I guess I shouldn't be surprised that roundhead believes that. He does believe in much stupider crap.
.
68 shooters.
http://davesjfk.com/rashomon.html
,
And none of them Jackie, who had the most reason!

[brobradh77]

I give up..lol i can't seem to get y'all to understand the point of how a sniper works....The first shot taken is when you enter the killing zone so to continue forward keeps you there...If he had the oportuniy to shoot the president sooner why didn't he? If he had time to draw down on him why didnt he take the shot when the president was closer to him? Because he took the shot the instant he could...thats the point of the arguement.....

You are trying to tell me if you walked out of a house and got shot at you would just continue running down he street instead of getting back in the house...


I never saw a limo take off at 100 mph when the shots started..I never saw any acceleration at all unitl the birdge. 100 mph wont out run a bullet and frm his vantage point that speed would not offer much of an advantage

[I Ratant]

Well, why didn't Oswald shoot when the motorcade was on Houston, coming directly towards the TSBD?
Mebbe he fingered that all those Secret Service agents with their eyes in the fronts of their heads would SEE him up there!
And mebbe the governor was in the way.
Why wait until the motorcade was past the TSBD?
Because the Secret Service agents eyes are in the fronts of their heads.
And LHOLN has a good view of the target unobstructed by anything, and it's not a difficult target.
And it wasn't until the third and last shot that the attack was fully comprehended by anyone!

[A W Smith]

I give up..lol i can't seem to get y'all to understand the point of how a sniper works....The first shot taken is when you enter the killing zone so to continue forward keeps you there...If he had the oportuniy to shoot the president sooner why didn't he? If he had time to draw down on him why didnt he take the shot when the president was closer to him? Because he took the shot the instant he could...thats the point of the arguement.....Yes i get your point. Even though the limo at one point was closer to Oswald right after it made the turn. It is not an easier shot simply because you would need a sweeping motion left to right while standing to make your shot. Much easier to shoot at an object moving away from you with the barrel resting on the boxes. Like shooting at a cowboy riding off into the sunset. Take note that his first shot missed probably for those reasons. But the driver could not know that. Since all he knew was that he heard the shots from behind. Also evidenced by Connelly's head turn. His impulse was to drive away. Also it is documented that people in the motorcade behind that had not yet made the turn looked up to the window after the shots were fired. So Tell us why you would back into the killing zone?


You are trying to tell me if you walked out of a house and got shot at you would just continue running down he street instead of getting back in the house...If the door locks behind you. YES!!!


I never saw a limo take off at 100 mph when the shots started..I never saw any acceleration at all unitl the birdge. 100 mph wont out run a bullet and frm his vantage point that speed would not offer much of an advantageI see acceleration well before the bridge, Shortly after Jackie reaches over the trunk which is about 175-225 feet till the bridge.

[Cl1mh4224rd]

I dont know how many shooters there were, two certainly(the driver) and the shot which he took in the adam's apple from the front(another shooter independant of the driver) So at least two, perhaps more.My opinion is 3 or more.


http://www.theonion.com/content/node/42834

[I Ratant]

Stable shooting position..
With a 91/38 Carcano..
The target is going almost directly away, and rising in the field of view, very easy to shoot, reload, shoot, ... I got off 5 shots in the presumed time frame, changing targets at the Dealey distances each time.
And NOT using the scope, which being the same model as that on Oswald's rifle.. (Still being produced, and still unsuitable for a rifle larger than .22 LR.)
The cross hairs in mine fell out of alignment with 10 shots.
Photos I received from Howard Donahue ( Mortal Error) of one of his Carcanos, and mine.

[SmartyPants]

You are trying to tell me if you walked out of a house and got shot at you would just continue running down he street instead of getting back in the house...

Are you trying to tell me that if you outside walking toward your house and were shot, you'd go in reverse?


I never saw a limo take off at 100 mph when the shots started..I never saw any acceleration at all unitl the birdge. 100 mph wont out run a bullet and frm his vantage point that speed would not offer much of an advantage

The limousine accelerated before the bridge, out of the line of fire. Yes, 100mph won't out run a bullet, but it sure as hell makes it harder to hit your target, especially when it's moving out of your line of sight.

Maybe you should make a trip to Dealy Plaza, then tell me that accelerating toward Stemmons Freeway doesn't offer much of an advantage.

[SmartyPants]

.
You haven't, but Ctwinkies say that all the time.

That's true, and I know that saying it slowed down gives them ammunition (no pun intended), allowing them misrepresent what happened (if it did slow down), but from my view, and I think the vast majority of reliable eyewitnesses and authors, conclude that the limousine slowed very slightly, but did not stop. I think this is a fair analysis of what I'm trying to convey:

http://home.comcast.net/~the-puzzle-palace/Mantik1.htm

I'm not trying to make things easier for them, nor I am suggesting that you're misrepresenting anything to make things harder for them, but I do think our views are arguable. In any case, we're on the same side here. Fair enough?

[SmartyPants]

http://www.theonion.com/content/node/42834

That's funny.

And yet only one guy manages to get the head shot, which is pretty amazing considering the all-powerful...whoever...is behind the scenes.

ETA: Oh, and roundhead, to get back to the OP, are you going to answer any (hopefully all) the questions I've asked you?

[Thunder]

The fact that its there, no matter the direction, makes the official story false

wow, 9-11 truther logic is applied with JFK as well huh?

[TK0001]

wow, 9-11 truther logic is applied with JFK as well huh?

Keep reading. It gets better.

[TheDaver]

wow, 9-11 truther logic is applied with JFK as well huh?
Yup. It’s the entire CT mindset:

“There’s some small part of this that I don’t understand, so it’s all a lie.”

[brobradh77]

Yes i get your point. Even though the limo at one point was closer to Oswald right after it made the turn. It is not an easier shot simply because you would need a sweeping motion left to right while standing to make your shot. Much easier to shoot at an object moving away from you with the barrel resting on the boxes. Like shooting at a cowboy riding off into the sunset. Take note that his first shot missed probably for those reasons. But the driver could not know that. Since all he knew was that he heard the shots from behind. Also evidenced by Connelly's head turn. His impulse was to drive away. Also it is documented that people in the motorcade behind that had not yet made the turn looked up to the window after the shots were fired. So Tell us why you would back into the killing zone?
If the door locks behind you. YES!!!I see acceleration well before the bridge, Shortly after Jackie reaches over the trunk which is about 175-225 feet till the bridge.

It would not be backing into a killing zone... if the sniper can not take a shot until you enter it. Therefore backing up takes you out of the killing zone. If you were in the killing zone sooner he would have taken the shot sooner. he had to wait until a certain point on the road to take that shot.

The whole explanation for backing up/reversing your direction of travel is the point of not knowing where the sniper is..All you knwo is as you were walking/driving there were no shots until you reached a certain point in the road. So common sense tells you to get back to a point when no shots were fired. That is the safest thing to do. PERIOD

you know at point A no shots...point B (shots fired) you have now entered an area that leaves you open to getting shot..so why continue in a straight line to point C in this area? Point C maybe a safe spot but you do not know where the sniper is but you do know 2 things:

1.) at point A you were not shot at
2.) once you reached point B the sniper fired at you

so where do you head? If you have any common sense at all its back to point A because you know there was something about point A that kept the sniper from firing at you.

Same principle here..Thats all i'm trying to say...You enter a danger zone the quickest way out is the way you came in..not driving across it.

[SmartyPants]

It would not be backing into a killing zone... if the sniper can not take a shot until you enter it. Therefore backing up takes you out of the killing zone. If you were in the killing zone sooner he would have taken the shot sooner. he had to wait until a certain point on the road to take that shot.

The whole explanation for backing up/reversing your direction of travel is the point of not knowing where the sniper is..All you knwo is as you were walking/driving there were no shots until you reached a certain point in the road. So common sense tells you to get back to a point when no shots were fired. That is the safest thing to do. PERIOD

you know at point A no shots...point B (shots fired) you have now entered an area that leaves you open to getting shot..so why continue in a straight line to point C in this area? Point C maybe a safe spot but you do not know where the sniper is but you do know 2 things:

1.) at point A you were not shot at
2.) once you reached point B the sniper fired at you

so where do you head? If you have any common sense at all its back to point A because you know there was something about point A that kept the sniper from firing at you.

Same principle here..Thats all i'm trying to say...You enter a danger zone the quickest way out is the way you came in..not driving across it.

We get what you're saying. The logistics of what you say is protocol was not an option on that day, unless you can figure out a way to back up an entire motorcade about two blocks and back through the line of fire. And even if you could, the safest option is to hit the gas and get hell out of Dodge. I mean, you're not seriously debating this are you?

Also, are you going to answer the questions I asked before? Specifically, is the Secret Service guilty of murdering the president?

[brobradh77]

We get what you're saying. The logistics of what you say is protocol was not an option on that day, unless you can figure out a way to back up an entire motorcade about two blocks and back through the line of fire. And even if you could, the safest option is to hit the gas and get hell out of Dodge. I mean, you're not seriously debating this are you?

Also, are you going to answer the questions I asked before? Specifically, is the Secret Service guilty of murdering the president?

No I am not suspecting the secret service of being guilty of murder..lol I just thought they were a little slow to respond compared to what I have seen in the past i.e. Regan getting shot...

I didnt answer the questions because everytime i quoted someone there was a URL and I kept losing everything i wrote so I gave up..lol

I see your and everyones point and respect it... I just feel no one is seeing my point as to what I am trying to make.....You all are talking like I do not know where he was shot from and that The first shot taken was at the end of the killing zone and it wasnt it was the entrance to it..hence why there were more shots that followed as they "sped" off thru it leaving oswald more oportunities to shoot.

[JohnG]

No I am not suspecting the secret service of being guilty of murder..lol I just thought they were a little slow to respond compared to what I have seen in the past i.e. Regan getting shot...


The Reagan assassination attempt was almost 20 years after the Kennedy assassination. Plenty of time for some "lessons learned" memos to circulate amongst the Secret Service? Besides, foiling Reagan's would-be assassin hardly went like clockwork, did it? I doubt (or at least hope) that you feel there's anything suspicious about that, though?

I've said it 100 times before and I'll say it agin; life is not like a James Bond movie, and believe me, no one is less pleased about that than I am.:D

[SmartyPants]

No I am not suspecting the secret service of being guilty of murder..lol I just thought they were a little slow to respond compared to what I have seen in the past i.e. Regan getting shot...

I didnt answer the questions because everytime i quoted someone there was a URL and I kept losing everything i wrote so I gave up..lol

I see your and everyones point and respect it... I just feel no one is seeing my point as to what I am trying to make.....You all are talking like I do not know where he was shot from and that The first shot taken was at the end of the killing zone and it wasnt it was the entrance to it..hence why there were more shots that followed as they "sped" off thru it leaving oswald more oportunities to shoot.

No one's saying that the Secret Service did a stellar job that day, although it certainly could have been worse and they weren't to blame for everything going wrong.

We all see your point crystal clear. What we're questioning (at least I am) is if you're getting the protocol right. All the evidence from that day suggest that reversing position wouldn't be correct protocol. But, for the sake of argument, let's say it was. Would it be safe to assume that there would be a "Plan B" in place? Plan B being, "you know, if we have a motorcade behind us, perhaps we should hit the gas to the nearest hospital instead of running into to them, not knowing when or where, exactly, the shooter has the best opportunity to shoot. After all, we can rest assured that we're out of the target area once we get passed the underpass."


You all are talking like I do not know where he was shot from and that The first shot taken was at the end of the killing zone and it wasnt it was the entrance to it..hence why there were more shots that followed as they "sped" off thru it leaving oswald more oportunities to shoot.

Two things:
1.) We know where the shots we're fired from after the fact. The Secret Service did not know at the time of the shootings where they were coming from. In fact, I'd say this is quite clearly the most controversial aspect of the entire assassination, yes?

2.) There were NO shots fire after the limousine sped off. I'd say that's pretty clear for a couple of reasons: The killer already had his head shot and there weren't any more opportunities as the limousine was out of sight. Again, this is pretty obvious if you've looked out the building from Oswald's window. There's a video here (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lpAjEPOxjmc&feature=related) and here (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tU69lMs2FMg&feature=related).

[I Ratant]

This "protocol" sounds more to me like something a video gamer would come up with .
Or someone briefing an patrol looking for insurgents in Fallujah in 2009, but not something many security agencies had experience with in 1963, particularly in a typical American city, with no dissent of any magnitude stirring the population for or against anything the JFK administration was doing and no real precedent to expect much more than the occasional whacko like the Umbrella Man demonstrating his peculiar psychosis about Joe Kennedy.

[SmartyPants]

This "protocol" sounds more to me like something a video gamer would come up with .
Or someone briefing an patrol looking for insurgents in Fallujah in 2009, but not something many security agencies had experience with in 1963, particularly in a typical American city, with no dissent of any magnitude stirring the population for or against anything the JFK administration was doing and no real precedent to expect much more than the occasional whacko like the Umbrella Man demonstrating his peculiar psychosis about Joe Kennedy.

That's what I'm saying.

Although to be fair, there was some dissent (http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/were-heading-into-nut-country-president-kennedy-said-this-to-an-aide-as-he-began-his-fatal-visit-to-texas-thirty-years-ago-here-peter-pringle-evokes-dallas-as-it-was-then-a-hostile-place-which-cared-very-little-for-the-dream-that-died-there-1505387.html), which was part of the reason for visiting Dallas in the first place.

[JohnG]

Even if it was proper protocol generally speaking, (which I still doubt), did backing into a line of slow moving cars and motorcycles away from the line of fire make the most sense in this specific situation? The issue wasn't that they are trying to avoid getting shot, two of the passengers have already been shot. One of them (The President of the United States, no less) was clearly grievously wounded and if there was to be any hopes of saving him, time was of the essence. Wouldn't the smartest thing to do be to get them to the nearest hospital using the fastest, most direct route? To me there's a big difference between how one should act to avoid a being injured and how one should act if one is already injured.

[brobradh77]

No one's saying that the Secret Service did a stellar job that day, although it certainly could have been worse and they weren't to blame for everything going wrong.

We all see your point crystal clear. What we're questioning (at least I am) is if you're getting the protocol right. All the evidence from that day suggest that reversing position wouldn't be correct protocol. But, for the sake of argument, let's say it was. Would it be safe to assume that there would be a "Plan B" in place? Plan B being, "you know, if we have a motorcade behind us, perhaps we should hit the gas to the nearest hospital instead of running into to them, not knowing when or where, exactly, the shooter has the best opportunity to shoot. After all, we can rest assured that we're out of the target area once we get passed the underpass."




Two things:
1.) We know where the shots we're fired from after the fact. The Secret Service did not know at the time of the shootings where they were coming from. In fact, I'd say this is quite clearly the most controversial aspect of the entire assassination, yes?

2.) There were NO shots fire after the limousine sped off. I'd say that's pretty clear for a couple of reasons: The killer already had his head shot and there weren't any more opportunities as the limousine was out of sight. Again, this is pretty obvious if you've looked out the building from Oswald's window. There's a video

The only reason I brought up the limo speeding off was from another response basically saying when the shots started they sped off to avoid them...atleast thats how i took it.

Even if it was proper protocol generally speaking, (which I still doubt), did backing into a line of slow moving cars and motorcycles away from the line of fire make the most sense in this specific situation? The issue wasn't that they are trying to avoid getting shot, two of the passengers have already been shot. One of them (The President of the United States, no less) was clearly grievously wounded and if there was to be any hopes of saving him, time was of the essence. Wouldn't the smartest thing to do be to get them to the nearest hospital using the fastest, most direct route? To me there's a big difference between how one should act to avoid a being injured and how one should act if one is already injured.

I can agree with this...I don't believe in conspiracy here..I just have seen so much about the kennedy assasination I always see something I want to question....I find this a fascinating subject for me to learn from...Thanks for the good discussion about this...;)

[SmartyPants]

The only reason I brought up the limo speeding off was from another response basically saying when the shots started they sped off to avoid them...atleast thats how i took it.

That certainly played a role in them speeding up.

[I Ratant]

Found a scale model of Dealey Plaza with the motorcade and persons of interest.
There's nothing like this in the contemporary media.
Added some text..

[brobradh77]

That certainly played a role in them speeding up.

yeah... but it did not speed off until after the shooting was done

[Aidoneus]

Well it wouldn't have sped up before the shooting...

[brobradh77]

Well it wouldn't have sped up before the shooting...

damn y'all take stuff so literally..lol

Someone mentioned earlier that it would have been safer to speed off when the first shot was fired......ooookkkk?

All i was saying is they did not speed off until after the fatal head shot when they were insinuating that the limo did speed off once the first shot was fired...get it?

[shawmutt]

I think the repeating watching of someone getting his head blown off has a negative cognitive effect on some minds, resulting on all the random reaching for conspiracies. I almost wish they didn't have a video of it, CTists be damned. What a horrible way to go, and in front of your wife no less.

[SmartyPants]

All i was saying is they did not speed off until after the fatal head shot when they were insinuating that the limo did speed off once the first shot was fired...get it?

Who is they and when did they insinuate this?

[I Ratant]

Post #92.
Known as Altgens5.
Taken after the 2nd shot.
There was still some "cognitive dissonance".. No one shoots at the President.

[brobradh77]

Who is they and when did they insinuate this?

I'm not digging back thru 160 post to find it...lol but it was within the past 2 days

[TK0001]

So, it is of your opinion that:

1. A mystery gunman shot from somewhere in front of the limo, through the windshield, and into Kennedy's adam's apple, deftly avoiding the rearview mirror, the driver, the other secret service agent, the governor, and the governor's seat, in broad daylight, while somehow avoiding detection from anyone on the scene.

2. Oswald shot from the 6th floor of the TSBD. Since the governor and Kennedy both reacted at the same time to their respective wounds, Oswald and the front shooter somehow timed their shots with absolute perfect precision.

3. A few seconds later, the driver deliberately stopped the limo, turned around, and fired the shot which exploded the front of Kennedy's head, also miraculously escaping detection.

Does this pretty well sum up your theory of what happened in Dealy Plaza that day? Any other shooters we need to examine? The grassy knoll shooter, perhaps? Maybe the umbrella man?

Bump. Roundhead, please confirm, deny, or offer a different version of events.

Thanks in advance.

[WildCat]

Of all the JFK conspiracy theories, the one where the driver shoots him is the most loony to date.

[SmartyPants]

Of all the JFK conspiracy theories, the one where the driver shoots him is the most loony to date.

It's a good one. But I think I have another two that surpasse it. Off the top of my head:

1.) Bonar Menninger's book, Mortal Error,theorizes that a secret service agent, George Hickey, accidentally shot Kennedy with his AR-15.

2.) This is the best one. Per "Newsweek," one guy at an assassination symposium in Dallas argued that LBJ shot Kennedy (yes, actually shot him) with one of his six-guns concealed by a cape (Reclaiming History, Bugliosi 1497).

But, yeah, you're right. Of all the one "mainstream" theories picking up steam, the driver one is pretty tough to beat.

[CurtC]

Fetzer's idea that the Zapruder film was doctored to show something completely different from what happened is pretty out-there too, if you consider how 1960s tampering technology could be used to fool 1970s and later experts in photographic film.

[RoboTimbo]

roundhead must have missed the last bump. I'm sure he will want to present his answers to post #163.

[SmartyPants]

And when he's through with 163, I hope he gets to 103 and 108.

[JohnG]

Maybe he realized he's on the wrong side of this particular argument and simply has nothing to say? I'd like to think so.

[jhunter1163]

Maybe he realized he's on the wrong side of this particular argument and simply has nothing to say? I'd like to think so.

You'd be wrong. From the Stundie thread, of all places:

Thanks, unlike you, i figured out the Warren Commision was trash decades ago.



http://forums.randi.org/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=4624628

[RoboTimbo]

A pity he didn't come back to defend his position then.

[TK0001]

Bump. Roundhead, please confirm, deny, or offer a different version of events.

Thanks in advance.

Whoops, just about slipped off the first page. Roundhead, if you could please rejoin the thread you started, in which questions were directed toward you, that would be great.

[Drudgewire]

Whoops, just about slipped off the first page. Roundhead, if you could please rejoin the thread you started, in which questions were directed toward you, that would be great.


Don't hold your breath. (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=140518) :D

[TK0001]

Don't hold your breath. (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=140518) :D

Crap.

We need some time filler. Anyone up for some Scramble?

[CurtC]

Roundhead, if you could please rejoin the thread you started, in which questions were directed toward you, that would be great.

Roundhead, I've been waiting for quite a while for you to answer these questions. I'm gonna need you to go ahead and come back in here to answer them. Yeah. That would be great.

http://www.the-reel-mccoy.com/movies/1999/images/officespace_lumbergh.jpg

[RoboTimbo]

Roundhead, I've been waiting for quite a while for you to answer these questions. I'm gonna need you to go ahead and come back in here to answer them. Yeah. That would be great.

http://www.the-reel-mccoy.com/movies/1999/images/officespace_lumbergh.jpg

Roundhead is on hiatus. On his return, I'd like to see him open a thread about the Warren Commission report and it's credibility, in addition to answering any outstanding questions from this thread.

[TK0001]

Bump.

Keeping this one relevant, eagerly awaiting roundhead's return.

[RoboTimbo]

So, the others wouldn't know the sound of a .45 caliber pistol firing 10 feet away from them (a .45 does NOT sound like a fire cracker)? They wouldn't notice Kennedy's face not being there (which would have been the result if your theory were true)? They wouldn't see the smoke?

You obviously have no idea how a gun works.

On roundhead's return, maybe we could have a thread discussing the particular gun used by the driver to shoot Kennedy?

[dafydd]

This is the best JFK theory.
http://vids.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=vids.individual&videoid=993356652

[oldhat]

Of all the JFK conspiracy theories, the one where the driver shoots him is the most loony to date.

No love for assassins hiding in the sewers?

[dafydd]

Isn't that great? JFK shot himself!

[Typicallucas]

How could anyone be able to tell by looking at an actual bullet hole in a windshield, from which direction the bullet was fired?

If the windshield was laminated you could tell from looking at the layers of glass and laminate. Especially if a layer of laminate on one side is still intact.

If a bullet goes through the glass you can tell from the shape of the hole it makes in the glass. The hole on the exit side will be larger than then entrance side.

It just takes careful observation and some scrutiny of the evidence.

http://www.fotosearch.com/bthumb/PDS/PDS059/AA024093.jpg

[Wolrab]

It just takes careful observation and some scrutiny of the evidence.
There's yer problem! This is the conspiracy forum and all.

[TK0001]

If the windshield was laminated you could tell from looking at the layers of glass and laminate. Especially if a layer of laminate on one side is still intact.

If a bullet goes through the glass you can tell from the shape of the hole it makes in the glass. The hole on the exit side will be larger than then entrance side.

It just takes careful observation and some scrutiny of the evidence.

http://www.fotosearch.com/bthumb/PDS/PDS059/AA024093.jpg

One would think it should be even easier to recognize the difference between a bullet hole and a crack, but the testimony of the woman in the documentary (forgot her name, too lazy to go look it up), who declared herself an expert because she's been around guns all her life, was just so convincing.

[/sarcasm]

Also, roundhead, welcome back. Please address our many questions directed to you in this thread. Thanks.

[RoboTimbo]

One would think it should be even easier to recognize the difference between a bullet hole and a crack, but the testimony of the woman in the documentary (forgot her name, too lazy to go look it up), who declared herself an expert because she's been around guns all her life, was just so convincing.

[/sarcasm]

Also, roundhead, welcome back. Please address our many questions directed to you in this thread. Thanks.

Evalea Glanges, and she seemed credible. That means her memory after over 45 years and her word are practically gold. I guess Roundhead's position on this glass thing and on the Warren Commission report is indefensible. A pity.

[TK0001]

Bump.

[roundhead]

Bump. Roundhead, please confirm, deny, or offer a different version of events.

Thanks in advance.

I think there were multiple shooters, none of whom were Oswald, they didnt get very lucky, and its very likely the driver capped him .

It sure wasnt Oswald, if it was he wouldnt be dead, are wouldnt have been so soon after the murder

[theprestige]

I think there were multiple shooters, none of whom were Oswald, they didnt get very lucky, and its very likely the driver capped him.
What evidence has led you to this conclusion?

[TK0001]

I think there were multiple shooters

How many? And where were they located?

they didnt get very lucky

You think the driver killed him, and he "didn't get very lucky"? I would consider it miraculous that no one saw the driver shoot him, not just lucky.

and its very likely the driver capped him .

In broad daylight. And no one saw or heard the shot coming from the car. Including those riding in the car.

It sure wasnt Oswald, if it was he wouldnt be dead, are wouldnt have been so soon after the murder

I have no idea what this means.

[RoboTimbo]

I think there were multiple shooters, none of whom were Oswald, they didnt get very lucky, and its very likely the driver capped him .

It sure wasnt Oswald, if it was he wouldnt be dead, are wouldnt have been so soon after the murder

What happened to the three bullets from the shots made by Oswald?

[RoboTimbo]

Has Roundhead left the building again?

[7forever]

The shot that hit Kennedy in the throat at 225 came through the windshield.

[7forever]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vClwuJ0yuWM&feature=PlayList&p=BB641ED750B97F0D&playnext=1&playnext_from=PL&index=14

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8IHYSwK9Xac&feature=PlayList&p=CA3C4F4B4B12C20C&index=12 Connally reacts to the bullet at 225 as it passes his head.

[DGM]

The shot that hit Kennedy in the throat at 225 came through the windshield.
Welcome back. ;)

[7forever]

Welcome back. ;)

If you think I'm a new nick you are wrong.;)I just signed up.

[Cl1mh4224rd]

The shot that hit Kennedy in the throat at 225 came through the windshield.


That is one magic bullet, indeed, to pass through a windshield leaving only cracks, but no actual hole (http://i308.photobucket.com/albums/kk351/JosiahThompson/Windshield/CE350close-up.jpg).

[7forever]

The goons covering up the hole in the windshield is no different than them covering up the massive exit wound that could have only come from a front shooter. Watch Connally react to the bullet at 225-26 as it passes his head. The first shot missed at 147-160. The second gunshot and first gunshot wound came through the windshield at 225 and entered Kennedy's throat. The third shot was fired from the rear and entered Connally's back between 234-238. Connally said himself he was hit by 234 and his doctor said his body was in a position to receieve the four wounds he suffered between 234-238. There were at least 5 shots, the last two being bang, bang.;)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=czQKoxjcvgc

[kookbreaker]

The goons covering up the hole in the windshield is no different than them covering up the massive exit wound that could have only come from a front shooter.

So basically any evidence that does not agree with your preconceived notions is part of a 'cover-up'?

OK, we are done here.

[beachnut]

The goons covering up ...
Who? You have evidence of a cover-up? Please name names and show your proof.

You could clear up some of your apprehension about JFK if you go to the window where Oswald shot Kennedy. You will find that anyone taking a pot shot at someone fading away from the window could be hit by accident let alone if you were aiming.

If you have proof you would have what it takes to earn a Pulitzer Prize, but you only have delusions based on more delusions; on the Pulitzer Prize ask Woodward and Bernstein who took out a president the correct way, and for your delusions good luck.

[7forever]

From an interview by journalist Doug Thomson
conducted in 1982.

Do you think LHO fired the gun that killed Kennedy?

John Connally: "Absolutely not. I do not, for one second, believe the conclusions of the Warren Commission."

John Connally knew both shots that hit Kennedy from the film came from the front and the one that him came from the rear.

[Arus808]

could you join us in 2010, when all of these were dealt with 30 years ago?

[carlitos]

John Connally: "Absolutely not. I do not, for one second, believe the conclusions of the Warren Commission."Well, who would I believe? John Connally himself, who never publicly said those words, or a blogger named Doug Thompson who, in the article itself (http://www.capitolhillblue.com/node/24557), says that they were both drunk at the time? The article is attributed to Capitol Hill Blue, a site known to print myth as fact (http://www.capitolhillblue.com/artman/publish/article_7779.shtml) if it furthers their political agenda. Easy choice for some.

[CurtC]

John Connally knew both shots that hit Kennedy from the film came from the front and the one that him came from the rear.

Even if Connally said those words, why should we trust his opinion over the massive amount of evidence we have that the WC basically got it right?

[7forever]

Mr. SPECTER. What is the best estimate that you have as to the time span between the sound of the first shot and the feeling of someone hitting you in the back which you just described?

John thought there could be as many as 4 shooters.LOL:jaw-dropp He knew he was not shot by the same bullet because he knew the shot at 225 passed his head before it hit kennedy. No matter what he says in his testimony about lying about all the shots coming from the rear. His jump at 225 confirms the shot from the front. The chain of evidence regarding the windshield was researched by Doug Weldon. Put it this way...a jury would believe the shot came from the front, rule out the shot coming from the fence and would laugh at the shot coming from the rear because it's nonsense and is debunked solely based on evidence that supports a frontal shot. He knew he wasn't shot by the same bullet and that would hold up in any court and be believed by any half-assed prosecutor delivering the truth.
The real enemy of truth in this case is the grassy knoll.

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.

Governor CONNALLY. Well, first, again I assume the bullet was traveling faster than the sound. I was hit by the bullet prior to the time the sound reached me, and I was in either a state of shock or the impact was such that the sound didn't even register on me, but I was never conscious of hearing the second shot at all.
Obviously, at least the major wound that I took in the shoulder through the chest couldn't have been anything but the second shot. Obviously, it couldn't have been the third, because when the third shot was fired I was in a reclining position, and heard it, saw it and the effects of it, rather--I didn't see it, I saw the effects of it--so it obviously could not have been the third, and couldn't have been the first, in my judgment.

[carlitos]

Wow. A guy who got shot and thought he was "in a state of shock" thought "wow, this is happening fast," and has somewhat differing recollections of perspective. This evidence is compelling. You are taking it to the newspapers and relevant authorities now?

[7forever]

Even if Connally said those words, why should we trust his opinion over the massive amount of evidence we have that the WC basically got it right?

The WC said the fatal shot came from the rear even though the film shows the shot coming from the front and they ignored his head going backward violently. The WC was huge pile of nonsense and that was confirmed by the HSCA concluding there were 4 shots, therefore at least 2 shooters. John Connally covered for the government but was unwilling to play dumb in regards to his wounds being caused by the same bullet that hit Kennedy.

[carlitos]

The film shows the shot? Seriously? That's some fast film! How many frames per second?

ETA - Don't post a graphic photo here to 'prove' your point. That one yesterday was offensive.

[JimBenArm]

So, which government did Connally cover for? Was it the Dallas Independent School District? I bet that was it. They were shot from the School Book Depository, so they didn't want to look bad.
Or maybe it was the Dallas Utilities? There probably were several shooters hiding in the sewer system.
Maybe it was the Texas Legislature? They probably took a contract out on Connally, since he was the Governor. I heard he was the real target.
Or was it the Greek legislature? Onassis had influence there, and JFK being out of the way would grease the skids for him and Jackie to hook up.

You gotta be more specific about which government he was covering for!

[CurtC]

The WC said the fatal shot came from the rear even though the film shows the shot coming from the front

The Zapruder film shows the shot coming from the front? Where? Good ol' Jim Fetzer thinks the Zapruder film was faked, because it seems to support the conclusions of the WC. I wish you conspiracy guys would talk to each other and get your story straight.


The WC was huge pile of nonsense and that was confirmed by the HSCA concluding there were 4 shots, therefore at least 2 shooters.
You mean the HSCA conclusions that were based solely on "expert" testimony of acoustics evidence? The acoustics analysis that has since been shown without a doubt to be wrong? Besides that wrong acoustics analysis, was there anything else, anything at all, that they found which pointed to more than one shooter? No? Didn't think so.

[beachnut]

From an interview by journalist Doug Thomson
conducted in 1982.

Do you think LHO fired the gun that killed Kennedy?

John Connally: "Absolutely not. I do not, for one second, believe the conclusions of the Warren Commission."

John Connally knew both shots that hit Kennedy from the film came from the front and the one that him came from the rear.
Source? And where is the quote where Connally says the shots were from the front? Source?

The source is made up delusions from all your other failed sources. You googled it.

[tsig]

The WC said the fatal shot came from the rear even though the film shows the shot coming from the front and they ignored his head going backward violently. The WC was huge pile of nonsense and that was confirmed by the HSCA concluding there were 4 shots, therefore at least 2 shooters. John Connally covered for the government but was unwilling to play dumb in regards to his wounds being caused by the same bullet that hit Kennedy.

OK you're right now what?

[7forever]

OK you're right now what?

You could say the same thing about any cover-up. Nothing will happen, certainly not in the Kennedy case. The greatest victory would be a movie that told what really happened.

[carlitos]

LOL @ "The greatest victory would be a movie." Outstanding.

[7forever]

At least I'm being realistic. The grassy knoll is a red herring. Stone and Grodin did the government's bidding in promoting a false theory. The fatal shot came from the front not the right side. They fooled millions by editing a scene to make it look like it was fired from the fence.

[dudalb]

Oliver Stone was in on it?

:eye-poppi:eye-poppi:eye-poppi:eye-poppi:jaw-dropp:jaw-dropp:jaw-dropp:jaw-dropp

[jhunter1163]

At least I'm being realistic. The grassy knoll is a red herring. Stone and Grodin did the government's bidding in promoting a false theory. The fatal shot came from the front not the right side. They fooled millions by editing a scene to make it look like it was fired from the fence.

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

Here you go. Educate yourself and come back.

[7forever]

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

Here you go. Educate yourself and come back.

Educate yourself by looking at the angle of the fence. IT WAS NOT POSSIBLE TO CREATE THE EXIT WOUND ON THE REAR from the right side. There is no debating it. It would have exited the left side and obviously very risky in accidentally shooting Jackie. The fence shot was NONSENSE from the day it happened. No gunshot wounds were caused from the fence.

http://i889.photobucket.com/albums/ac98/77forever/WallPaint244.jpg
http://i889.photobucket.com/albums/ac98/77forever/WallPaint260.jpg

[7forever]

1. missed shot; frame 147-160. Connally looks left and back right by 169.

2. 225 is the first gunshot wound and enters Kennedy's throat but passes by Connally's head first. the bullet comes through the windshield. Connally flinches, throwing his hands/arms up to his left at 225.

3. Connally is struck in the back from the back at 234-238 and received four wounds. He said himself after viewing the film he was hit at 234 and his family doctor said he was in a postion to receieve those wounds around those frames.

[EventHorizon]

1. missed shot; frame 147-160. Connally looks left and back right by 169.

2. 225 is the first gunshot wound and enters Kennedy's throat but passes by Connally's head first. the bullet comes through the windshield. Connally flinches, throwing his hands/arms up to his left at 225.

3. Connally is struck in the back from the back at 234-238 and received four wounds. He said himself after viewing the film he was hit at 234 and his family doctor said he was in a postion to receieve those wounds around those frames.

Well jeez, if the family doctor said so, it MUST be true. :rolleyes:

[kookbreaker]

Educate yourself by looking at the angle of the fence. IT WAS NOT POSSIBLE TO CREATE THE EXIT WOUND ON THE REAR from the right side. There is no debating it. It would have exited the left side and obviously very risky in accidentally shooting Jackie. The fence shot was NONSENSE from the day it happened. No gunshot wounds were caused from the fence.


Not what jhunter was suggesting. Try again. This time look at the link.

[7forever]

You believe in the single bullet theory...:rolleyes:

[beachnut]

You believe in the single bullet theory...:rolleyes:
... repeating statements like this.

... you are a Kennedy Kook when you join a skeptics forum and post 13.43 posts a day about failed Kennedy conspiracy theories repeating fraudulent claims. And use a funny face ":rolleyes:"

[dudalb]

The most annoyning thing about the Tinfoilers is that keep recycling the same crap over and over and over.
The next most annoying thing is their lame attempts at wit and humor.

[Lanzy]

The most annoyning thing about the Tinfoilers is that keep recycling the same crap over and over and over.
The next most annoying thing is their lame attempts at wit and humor.

Where was this?

[twinstead]

The most annoyning thing about the Tinfoilers is that keep recycling the same crap over and over and over.
The next most annoying thing is their lame attempts at wit and humor.

I think starting meaningless, vapid threads on internet forums is probably number 3.

[JimBenArm]

...and here I thought it was people who can't let go of things that happened almost half-a-century ago.

The things you learn here!

[dudalb]

I think starting meaningless, vapid threads on internet forums is probably number 3.


#3 is implied in #1 and #2.

[7forever]

When you believe that his head would go backward from a rear shot...LOL:covereyes

[7forever]

When you troll your favorite board for anyone who demonstrates overwhelming evidence of a cover-up and disagree with them over and over. Disagree being the operative word.:p

[Arus808]

You need to stop watching Hollywood movies. what you see there doesn't happen in reality.

[7forever]

You need to stop watching Hollywood movies. what you see there doesn't happen in reality.

I couldn't agree more. Oliver Stone and Robert Grodin were very important in covering up the truth for the government.;)Kennedy's head going backward proved beyond doubt that the shot came from the front. No books or researchers needed for that visual fact.:boggled:

[Brainster]

I take it the OP's nick is literal.

[stilicho]

I take it the OP's nick is literal.

Follow his posting history. This is a walking talking Stundie if ever I saw one.

[dudalb]

I think this thread has something to say about the OP:

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=166344

[7forever]

When you think your post count on a message board has something to with your knowledge of this case.

[twinstead]

#3 is implied in #1 and #2.

Ah, indeed

[7forever]

When you still believe the sbt theory after watching Nellie and John on Larry King and reading his testimony where he is adamant, he was not hit by the same bullet. Now, that is stubborn and retarded denial.:confused:

[beachnut]

I think starting meaningless, vapid threads on internet forums is probably number 3.
very true

[kookbreaker]

When you still believe the sbt theory after watching Nellie and John on Larry King and reading his testimony where he is adamant, he was not hit by the same bullet. Now, that is stubborn and retarded denial.:confused:

Yeah, I always trust the guy who was hit with a bullet to know exactly where the remainder of the bullet went, rather than depend on forensics and investigation crew.

[twinstead]

Yeah, I always trust the guy who was hit with a bullet to know exactly where the remainder of the bullet went, rather than depend on forensics and investigation crew.

Forensics and investigation is for SUCKERS, man!!!!!!!!111111!11!ELVENTY!!1

[kookbreaker]

When you believe that his head would go backward from a rear shot...LOL:covereyes

Playing video games with the Havoc ragdoll physics does not make you an expert in what the human body does when shot.

Nor does watching bad action movies where shotgun blasts knock people out windows make you an expert in the same field.

You know what makes someone a JFK nut? Thinking that their personal incredulity, along with a complete lack of evidence for any other shooters is worth a damn.

[7forever]

When you still believe the WC after the Hsca concluded there were at least 4 shots, hence, 2 shooters...LOL

[7forever]

You the believe that the magic bullet wasn't planted at Parkland and really caused Kennedy and Connally's wounds...WTF It is hard to believe that people like this actually exist in any society for God's sake.:eye-poppi

[kookbreaker]

When you still believe the WC after the Hsca concluded there were at least 4 shots, hence, 2 shooters...LOL

Those of us who are sane and do not depend on deceptive overly short summaries know that the HSCA screwed up at the end and allowed very suspect 'acoustic' evidence to come to that conclusion. Every other thing they investigated pointed solely to Oswald as the shooter.

You may not like that, but those are the facts about the HSCA's conclusions. Doesn't fit so neatly in your little world, however.

[JimBenArm]

So does actual discussion and dialog scare you so much that you have to post inane things?
How sad...

[kookbreaker]

You the believe that the magic bullet wasn't planted at Parkland and really caused Kennedy and Connally's wounds...WTF It is hard to believe that people like this actually exist in any society for God's sake.:eye-poppi

What makes you think it was planted?

Oh, right, you need it to be to keep your CT worldview intact.

[7forever]

What makes you think it was planted?

Oh, right, you need it to be to keep your CT worldview intact.

I am not a chain of evidence guy but the bullet was barely at all deformed. Plus, what I read it has no real chain of custody, it just kinda popped up. I did read that a nurse may have recovered fragments or a bullet near Connally.

[7forever]

So does actual discussion and dialog scare you so much that you have to post inane things?
How sad...

What would you like to discuss? The evidence overwhelmingly suggests that Kennedy was hit both times from the front and Connally was hit from the back. The Kennedy back shot is very questionable and I would only use it in a trial or test of the evidence to show its location, makes the sbt impossible.

[twinstead]

I am not a chain of evidence guy but the bullet was barely at all deformed.

This is a myth.

[kookbreaker]

I am not a chain of evidence guy but the bullet was barely at all deformed.


Wrong. It was deformed as one might expect from a FMJ bullet.


Plus, what I read it has no real chain of custody, it just kinda popped up.


As someone wiser than me said about the possibility of it being planted:


Anybody who wants to posit that CE 399 was faked and planted by conspirators needs to supply plausible answers to all of the following questions. Why did the conspirators . . .

1. Plant it in a location where it could easily have been lost?
2. Plant a bullet that was only "slightly" damaged if its role was to have passed through at least the President? Why not shoot up some livestock and get a bullet a bit more mangled?
3. Plant it before it could have been known how many other bullets would be recovered? How could they have known that CE 399 would not be the "one bullet too many" that would blow the whole plot?
4. Plant the bullet so it was found before it was known how much lead was in JFK's neck/upper back? What if a big chunk of lead was found in JFK's neck or upper back, a chunk too big to have come from CE 399?


As for the chain of custody, it was pretty well covered. Certainly well enough to be admitted as evidence in a court.

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/cece399.txt


I did read that a nurse may have recovered fragments or a bullet near Connally.

Bullet fragments were recovered from Connally.

ETA: I would point out that all of your claims are 'I read' or based on very limited understanding of the facts. Even if they hadn't been spelled out, all you have to base any 'plant' accusations are you own 'more suspicious that thou' mindstate.

Seriously, I doubt that you have anything that hasn't been debunked ages ago:

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

Are you even reading these links we give you?