129 replies to this topic

[Antilles]

Rlyeh, on 18 July 2012 - 01:10 PM, said:

Thanks man. Red Dwarf sets JFK up as his own assassin.

Great clip.

[regi]

Angel Left Wing, on 19 July 2012 - 05:52 AM, said:

Gee... I wonder why you deleted the rest of the post.

I didn't see the point in repeating it because yes, like it or not, that's the way it works.

Re: that "assassination committee", all they prove is that their conclusion is based on speculation.
Even you don't agree with them completely.

[Left-Field]

regi, on 19 July 2012 - 12:35 PM, said:

I didn't see the point in repeating it because yes, like it or not, that's the way it works.

That isn't how it works. You have chosen of your own free will to accept lower standards from the government in proving their claims about how the assassination of JFK was crafted and took place.

They haven't proven anything they claim, yet you have decided to believe their story simply because it comes from the government. Choosing to believe it, or not, is within your control, not theirs.

The same can be said for each of us individually.

regi, on 19 July 2012 - 12:35 PM, said:

Re: that "assassination committee", all they prove is that their conclusion is based on speculation. Even you don't agree with them completely.

Ok, for the sake of this conversation, I'll be willing to go along with your statement that United States House Select Committee On Assassinations based their conclusion that the JFK assassination was the very likely result of a conspiracy on nothing more than speculation.

Now tell me, what is it that the government bases their conslusion on regarding Lee Harvery Oswald being the only person responsible for the planning and assassination of JFK?

They haven't proven that claim, and quite frankly, to come to that conclusion involves a serious lack of logic, reasoning, and / or poor investigation. Regardless, please tell me how the government's arrival at that conclusion is based on anything more than their own speculation about the assassination.

Edited by Angel Left Wing, 19 July 2012 - 02:09 PM.

[regi]

Angel Left Wing, I haven't accepted lower standards; I don't believe something simply because it's what my government's telling me. It's clear to me that you completely misunderstood my initial post.

Regarding Oswald as the lone assassin, this is supported by fact that there's no evidence what-so-ever that there was any- not even one- other person involved.

[Left-Field]

regi, on 19 July 2012 - 04:15 PM, said:

Angel Left Wing, I haven't accepted lower standards; I don't believe something simply because it's what my government's telling me. It's clear to me that you completely misunderstood my initial post.

Apparently, you don't realize what you stated.

regi, on 19 July 2012 - 04:15 PM, said:

Regarding Oswald as the lone assassin, this is supported by fact that there's no evidence what-so-ever that there was any- not even one- other person involved.

First off, what evidence exits proving Oswald was involved? (I do believe he was involved, but I'm asking what evidence has been brought forth proving he was).

Secondly, there is evidence that cleary suggests more than one gunman was involved. This, by itself, means that Oswald couldn't have been the lone gunman. There was no lone gunman.

Also, what do you make of the fact doctors that operated on Kennedy stated the wounds to the front of his head and neck were clearly entry wounds? What do you make of the fact these same doctors state, based on autopsy photos, that these wounds were tampered with after Kennedy's body was taken from the hospital?

How do you make sense that Oswald was witnessed on the fourth floor of the book depository displaying a calm demeanor - with no signs of being out of breath - by a police officer within roughly one minute of President Kennedy being shot?

[regi]

Angel Left Wing, we don't even agree on what the facts are!
Do you remember that I said that I'm sick to death of this case? I certainly have no desire- nor the energy if I did- to debate this case with anyone who believes that it's a fact that wounds were tampered with.
What's ironic is that it's really very simple.
The first shot missed. The second shot hit Kennedy; it entered the back, and exited the throat. The third shot blew Kennedy's brains out and the spray- caused by the exit wound- is observed (on film) in forward motion.
When hit, Kennedy's head snapped back in what's called a neuromuscular reaction.

Three cart. shells were found at Oswald's perch on the sixth floor, along with his 12 dollar rifle. He didn't run around the bldg after carrying out such a horrific act (I wouldn't have expected that) but he did flee the bldg. where he then indeed, ran around like a loon. He hopped a random bus...he later killed a police officer, and ran into a theater. There were witnesses to all of these individual events.
That's the basic story of what happened that day, and the evidence- as I believe it to be- supports that that's what happened, and that Oswald did it.

Facts that show that he acted alone: There was no evidence of a sniper at the grassy knoll. (Why would there even be two snipers? It's a ridiculous position for a sniper to have taken- head-on where witnesses are facing in that direction.)
There were no entrance wounds to the right side of the body. The evidence supports that three shots were fired, and the shots were fired from the sixth floor, and there's no evidence to suggest that anyone else was involved.

[Left-Field]

regi, on 20 July 2012 - 02:15 PM, said:

Angel Left Wing, we don't even agree on what the facts are!

We may not agree on all of them, or even most of them, but there are certain things that should be, and are, facts in this case that shouldn't really have much dispute to be had over them.

One thing that is a fact is that the government has nevre proven Lee Harvey Oswald was the lone person that planned and carried out the assassination of President Kennedy.

With that being the case, I wonder why you so ademently believe he was the sole person responsible.

regi, on 20 July 2012 - 02:15 PM, said:

Do you remember that I said that I'm sick to death of this case? I certainly have no desire - nor the energy if I did - to debate this case with anyone who believes that it's a fact that wounds were tampered with.

You are "sick to death" of this case, and yet of your own free will you decided to open this thread, read what it was discussing, and then partake in that discussion? Hmm, sounds like some poor decision making on your part.

As for the wounds being tampered with, it is a FACT that the doctors who operated on Kennedy have stated the wounds were clearly tampered with after Kennedy's body left the hospital (they base this on the autopsy photos).

Now are you claiming that the doctors are incorrect in that determination?

Another FACT: The autopsy was conducted in an incredibly poor fashion.

Another FACT: The doctors that operated on President Kennedy stated the wounds to the front of his neck and forehead were clearly entry wounds.

If you don't feel these are facts, the least you could do is state why.

regi, on 20 July 2012 - 02:15 PM, said:

What's ironic is that it's really very simple.
The first shot missed. The second shot hit Kennedy; it entered the back, and exited the throat. The third shot blew Kennedy's brains out and the spray - caused by the exit wound - is observed (on film) in forward motion.

When hit, Kennedy's head snapped back in what's called a neuromuscular reaction.

*sighs* Really, you wish it was that simple. You don't want to know the truth and are content to believe what the government and media feed to you.

Kennedy's brain sprays out the front not because of the exit wound. They spray out the front because that is where the initial impact is made. That is where the initial opening to his head is and as such his brain matter squirts out the opening that is immediately available - the front of his head, which is the entry wound.

regi, on 20 July 2012 - 02:15 PM, said:

Three cart shells were found at Oswald's perch on the sixth floor, along with his 12 dollar rifle. He didn't run around the bldg after carrying out such a horrific act (I wouldn't have expected that) but he did flee the bldg. where he then indeed, ran around like a loon. He hopped a random bus...he later killed a police officer, and ran into a theater. There were witnesses to all of these individual events.

Really? Please tell me who witnessed Oswald on the sixth floor of the depository at his perch. Please tell me what evidence exits that actually places Oswald at that sixth floor shooting perch.

Also, why do you overlook the FACT that an officer - more qualified than an average citizen - places Oswald on the fourth floor of the depository calmy drinking soda within roughly a minute of President Kennedy being shot?

And if you are willing to acknowledge his placement there within that time frame, please explain to me how he got there so quickly without displaying any signs of being perturbed or out of breath after having run down two flights of stares and experiencing the rush that would have come from having just shot the President of the United States.

regi, on 20 July 2012 - 02:15 PM, said:

That's the basic story of what happened that day, and the evidence - as I believe it to be - supports that that's what happened, and that Oswald did it.

That is the story the government has told you - it is not factual, however. And there is numerous amounts of information which should allow any reasonable and logical person to realize this.

It is for those reasons that the United States House Select Committee On Assassinations concluded in 1978 that "Kennedy was very likely assassinated as the result of a conspiracy."

That conclusion doesn't mesh with the government's claim, however, and as such you dismiss it in the same manner you dismiss all the other bits of information that stand in contrast to what the government initially told the American people (and the rest of the world) happened.

regi, on 20 July 2012 - 02:15 PM, said:

Facts that show that he (Oswald) acted alone: There was no evidence of a sniper at the grassy knoll. (Why would there even be two snipers? It's a ridiculous position for a sniper to have taken - head-on where witnesses are facing in that direction).

So let's get this straight - facts show Oswald acted alone even though there is no evidence that proves Oswald shot Kennedy to begin with? How in the world does anyone reach that conclusion, because it clearly doesn't make any sense.

As for why there would be more than one sniper, I'm sure you've heard of what a "turkey shoot" is by now and why it would've been used for the assassination of President Kennedy.

As for the grassy knoll, a large number of witnesses claim to have heard gunshots fired from the location. Others mentioned coming across suspicious individuals at that location as well.

regi, on 20 July 2012 - 02:15 PM, said:

There were no entrance wounds to the right side of the body. The evidence supports that three shots were fired, and the shots were fired from the sixth floor, and there's no evidence to suggest that anyone else was involved.

There was an entrance wound to the right side of President Kennedy's forehead - the doctors that operated on Kennedy have stated this. I think they are more knowledgeable about such things than government officials who have a version of events in mind that they want people to believe as opposed to telling the truth.

And let's clarify your comments above - there is no evidence you are willing to acknowledge that stands in contrast to the version of events the government fed to everyone which you are content to believe.

We haven't haven't even touched upon the fact there was a total lack of standard security directly surrounding President Kennedy and within Dealey Plaza that day. I wonder why that could have possibly been...

Edited by Angel Left Wing, 20 July 2012 - 09:23 PM.

[TheMacGuffin]

I don't know of a single doctor in Dallas who said the the wound in JFK's throat was anything except an entrance wound.  That's just for starters.  That alone proves that someone was shooting from the front.

Furthermore, all the doctors in Dallas said that the back of JFK's head was blown out.

There is NO evidence that Oswald was even on the 6th Floor of the Book Depository at the time of the shooting, but plenty of witnesses who saw him in the lunch room, and then outside watching the motorcade.

The bullets fired at Officer J.D. Tippett do no match the gun that Oswald allegedly had.

And so on and so on....

Anyway who simply brushes this off nowadays simply doesn't want to know what really happened.

[TheMacGuffin]

Every single doctor in Dallas stated that JFK had a large wound in the back of his head and a small entrance wound in his throat, which were nor consistent with the autopsy notes and pictures.

Even the guys who took the pictures and x-rays at the autopsy have stated that the ones in the official records are different from the real ones. The Dallas doctors and nurses also insist that these have been altered.  

Edited by TheMacGuffin, 21 July 2012 - 07:00 AM.

[Antilles]

I have never believed that JFK was killed by Oswald. Wounded, yes, but killed, no.

I do not believe in the magic bullet and I never will.

Looking back now, I can understand how frantic and unbelievable the situation was to everyone involved.

There was a 2nd assassin and he shot JFK from front right.

That makes a conspiracy. Whether Oswald knew anything about the other shooter I don't know. However, I think his actions after the event suggest he knew that he'd been set up.

[TheMacGuffin]

One thing that has always been clear to me from the Zapruder film, in spite of any possible "alterations", is that there never was any "Magic Bullet", and that JFK and Connally were struck by two different bullets.  I think that they were both hit from different directions at the same time, but the shot that entered JFK's back did not go through his body and hit Connally.  

[TheMacGuffin]

Here we see Connally being hit in the back, but also being struck by a different bullet in the wrist.  He was not yet injured there when the bullet hit him in the back, but JFK had already been hit in the throat and the back as he started to turn.  

[TheMacGuffin]

I don't make any comment on the man holding the open umbrella, standing by the sign, when no one else in the crowd has an umbrella.  It was sunny when the assassination occurred, not raining, so there seems little reason for one man to be standing there with an open umbrella.  I won't say anything about the other figures that some people have spotted in this film, such as one man behind the fence holding what seems to be a rifle.

All I can say for certain that the number and trajectory of the bullets described in the "official" version simply do not match what we see happening in this film.

Other films and pictures taken of the School Book Depository at the time of the assassination do show movement and activity in more than one window on the 6th floor, although I doubt that Oswald was there at all.  Some other people were, though, but they have never been identified, not even the picture of a man with a different appearance from Oswald who may be holding a rifle.

Edited by TheMacGuffin, 21 July 2012 - 07:19 PM.

[regi]

Just a minute here. What "doctors in Dallas" are you, TheMacGuffin, referring to?

And Angel Left Wing, please, back up. Precisely what wounds were tampered with? How, when, and by whom as this accomplished? And what were "they" trying to accomplish?
Where does that come from? Just how big was this conspiracy/cover-up?

There may not have been witnesses to Oswald on the sixth floor, but there was one- Howard Brennan, who immediately notified authorities in the moments afterward that said he saw the third shot fired by a man with a rifle from the window below the top of the book depository. A young man with him, Amos Euins, said he saw the same thing.
However, there were no witnesses- not one- to anyone seen either with a rife, or running from the knoll. People were understandably confused (and acoustics played a part) about where the shots originated. A few thought they could have come from the knoll so when a few people ran that way, others followed. Monkey see, monkey do. Regardless, what anyone "thought", and what they knew, are two very different things.
A train operator positioned in a tower in the rail yard behind the knoll saw no one.
There is no evidence what-so-ever that anyone was at the knoll.

The medical evidence, alone, proves that the wounds as they were inflicted could not have come from the knoll. To disagree with that would be to disagree with 8 out of the 9 forensic pathologists consulted by the assassin. comm.
Only Cyril Wecht disagreed, but he also could not give an explanation as to how it was possible. (Despite his credentials, I've heard him speak like a froot loop before. Kinda like Spitz)

So, (never mind who "they" are) they decided to position a sniper who'd inflict bullet wounds from a particular direction, even though later, they'd have to "tamper" with the wounds to cover this up...
"They" fired shots from two different directions- mind you, two different weapons- but didn't want it known that there was a conspiracy.

If those things make sense to people, then what can I say?

I'm not sure you're all working with the same pieces, but regardless, good luck putting together the puzzle.

[TheMacGuffin]

On this video, we even have original testimony from doctors and reporters in Dallas on November 22, 1963, that JFK was hit in the throat and the right temple by bullets fired from the front.