Jump to content




Welcome to Unexplained Mysteries! Please sign in or create an account to start posting and to access a host of extra features.


- - - - -

JFK Assassination


  • Please log in to reply
508 replies to this topic

#436    DONTEATUS

DONTEATUS

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 16,660 posts
  • Joined:15 Feb 2008
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Planet TEXAS

Posted 20 October 2012 - 03:24 PM

My two cents ,And Remember I did have some connection to this event,One living at the time of the event,two my mother was directly Involved In the Jack Ruby caes and I too have eyes and a brain that has to agree with the Head shot from the rear and recoil back from basic balistics involved.
We all have had to live in our own ways over the years here in Dallas about this tragedy . But so many people really dont look at the actual documentation enough,Oswald was 99.9 % the lone shooter,If it ever turns out that Time travel can be made then Just Go back and stop Him on the 6th Floor and See what transpires ! JFK would not of been shot ,that day. :tu: JMO

This is a Work in Progress!

#437    MID

MID

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 14,490 posts
  • Joined:06 Aug 2005
  • Gender:Male

  • ...The greatest error is not to have tried and failed, but that in trying, we did not give it our best effort.

Posted 20 October 2012 - 10:06 PM

View PostDONTEATUS, on 20 October 2012 - 03:24 PM, said:

My two cents ,And Remember I did have some connection to this event,One living at the time of the event,two my mother was directly Involved In the Jack Ruby caes and I too have eyes and a brain that has to agree with the Head shot from the rear and recoil back from basic balistics involved.

Is that the idea behind his head going decidedly backwards from a shot that struck him in the rear of the head?


Quote

We all have had to live in our own ways over the years here in Dallas about this tragedy . But so many people really dont look at the actual documentation enough,Oswald was 99.9 % the lone shooter,If it ever turns out that Time travel can be made then Just Go back and stop Him on the 6th Floor and See what transpires ! JFK would not of been shot ,that day. :tu: JMO

... :yes: .  Yes, JFK wouldn't have received that bullet wound in his throat, nor a bullet wound in the front of his skull, if Oswald wasn't well above and well behind him to deliver those magical shots!

You've gotta admit, this guy was good!


#438    booNyzarC

booNyzarC

    Forum Divinity

  • Closed
  • 13,536 posts
  • Joined:18 Aug 2010
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 20 October 2012 - 10:59 PM

View PostMID, on 20 October 2012 - 10:06 PM, said:

Is that the idea behind his head going decidedly backwards from a shot that struck him in the rear of the head?

Hmm...  I've got a hell of a lot of respect for you MID.  You're an extremely intelligent and well reasoned man.  Given this statement though, I have to ask when you last watched the Zapruder film.  Has it been a while?




There is absolutely no doubt that his head moved forward initially, not backward.  It was not until the bullet had fully passed through that his entire upper torso reeled backward, which appears to be a convulsion.

Edited by booNyzarC, 20 October 2012 - 11:20 PM.


#439    Antilles

Antilles

    NCC-1701

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,190 posts
  • Joined:23 Jul 2011
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:2nd star from the left

Posted 21 October 2012 - 06:48 AM

His head goes backwards.

It's a law of physics or at least it was the last time I looked.

That head shot does not come from behind JFK.


#440    booNyzarC

booNyzarC

    Forum Divinity

  • Closed
  • 13,536 posts
  • Joined:18 Aug 2010
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 21 October 2012 - 12:46 PM

View PostAntilles, on 21 October 2012 - 06:48 AM, said:

His head goes backwards.

Not initially.  When the bullet hits, his head goes forward.



View PostAntilles, on 21 October 2012 - 06:48 AM, said:

It's a law of physics or at least it was the last time I looked.

That's the point I'm making.



View PostAntilles, on 21 October 2012 - 06:48 AM, said:

That head shot does not come from behind JFK.

Then why does his head move forward when the bullet impacts?


#441    hacktorp

hacktorp

    Remote Viewer

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 550 posts
  • Joined:11 Dec 2010

Posted 21 October 2012 - 05:14 PM

View PostbooNyzarC, on 21 October 2012 - 12:46 PM, said:

Then why does his head move forward when the bullet impacts?

It doesn't.  Impact causes a sharp twist of the head (to the left) which makes the back of the head appear to move forward but is actually turning slightly toward the camera.  This is consistent with a shot coming from the right front and hitting near the right temple.  A grainy 2D film is a poor interpreter of 3D spatial action.

Further, the projectile did not "fully passed through" as you say, it hit the skull and ricocheted, taking a big chunk with it.  This is consistent with the long-held belief that the caliber used for that shot was a much smaller, higher velocity type than that chambered by Oswald's rifle.  Had he been hit in the head by a bullet from Oswald's rifle, the damage would have been even messier.


#442    booNyzarC

booNyzarC

    Forum Divinity

  • Closed
  • 13,536 posts
  • Joined:18 Aug 2010
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 21 October 2012 - 05:42 PM

View Posthacktorp, on 21 October 2012 - 05:14 PM, said:

It doesn't.  Impact causes a sharp twist of the head (to the left) which makes the back of the head appear to move forward but is actually turning slightly toward the camera.  This is consistent with a shot coming from the right front and hitting near the right temple.  A grainy 2D film is a poor interpreter of 3D spatial action.

You're mistaken.  His head initially jerks forward with the impact of the bullet.  The forward movement is extremely subtle in comparison to the lurching convulsion backward which immediately follows, but despite that it is clearly visible to me, and it is not any kind of optical illusion resulting from him turning his head as you suggest.


View Posthacktorp, on 21 October 2012 - 05:14 PM, said:

Further, the projectile did not "fully passed through" as you say, it hit the skull and ricocheted, taking a big chunk with it.  This is consistent with the long-held belief that the caliber used for that shot was a much smaller, higher velocity type than that chambered by Oswald's rifle.  Had he been hit in the head by a bullet from Oswald's rifle, the damage would have been even messier.

Are you just arguing for the sake of arguing?  Of course the bullet fully passed through.  The fact that it impacted, or ricocheted if you prefer, against the interior of the skull on the way out is pedantic.  And if you are suggesting that the bullet never even entered the skull, I'd be curious about why there were fragments of the projectile found embedded within the tissue as would be consistent with it passing from the entry wound in the back of the skull, through the cranial cavity, and exiting from the right front.


#443    hacktorp

hacktorp

    Remote Viewer

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 550 posts
  • Joined:11 Dec 2010

Posted 21 October 2012 - 06:04 PM

View PostbooNyzarC, on 21 October 2012 - 05:42 PM, said:

You're mistaken.  His head initially jerks forward with the impact of the bullet.

No, you could not be more deluded about that, but I will certainly uphold your right to be so.

View PostbooNyzarC, on 21 October 2012 - 05:42 PM, said:

Are you just arguing for the sake of arguing?

Yeah, I know...that's YOUR department.

View PostbooNyzarC, on 21 October 2012 - 05:42 PM, said:

And if you are suggesting that the bullet never even entered the skull, I'd be curious about why there were fragments of the projectile found embedded within the tissue as would be consistent with it passing from the entry wound in the back of the skull, through the cranial cavity, and exiting from the right front.

Yes, the bullet entered the skull and fragmented.  It did NOT pass straight through.  You should really be MORE curious about why there was no entry wound from the back, as was initially reported by the medical staff at Parkland.  Or why there were projectile fragments in the brain at all, considering the condition of 'the bullet' that you and Arlen hang your hats on.


#444    booNyzarC

booNyzarC

    Forum Divinity

  • Closed
  • 13,536 posts
  • Joined:18 Aug 2010
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 21 October 2012 - 06:29 PM

View Posthacktorp, on 21 October 2012 - 06:04 PM, said:

No, you could not be more deluded about that, but I will certainly uphold your right to be so.

I'm sorry that you can't seem to see the forward motion of his head, but I can't cure blindness, as much as I'd like to be able to.


View Posthacktorp, on 21 October 2012 - 06:04 PM, said:

Yes, the bullet entered the skull and fragmented.  It did NOT pass straight through.  You should really be MORE curious about why there was no entry wound from the back, as was initially reported by the medical staff at Parkland.  Or why there were projectile fragments in the brain at all, considering the condition of 'the bullet' that you and Arlen hang your hats on.

Can you show me where I've ever made any kind of claim about the bullet that was recovered and whether it was the one involved with the head shot?

At any rate, I'm not all that interested in discussing the autopsy at the moment.  I mentioned it only to clarify whether or not you agreed that the bullet entered the cranial cavity or ricocheted off upon impact.  Perhaps at a future time I'll be interested in discussing that, but right now I am really only looking at the footage of the Zapruder film itself, which conclusively appears to show that he was struck in the back of the head, not from the front.


#445    hacktorp

hacktorp

    Remote Viewer

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 550 posts
  • Joined:11 Dec 2010

Posted 21 October 2012 - 06:57 PM

View PostbooNyzarC, on 21 October 2012 - 06:29 PM, said:

At any rate, I'm not all that interested in discussing the autopsy at the moment.  I mentioned it only to clarify whether or not you agreed that the bullet entered the cranial cavity or ricocheted off upon impact.  Perhaps at a future time I'll be interested in discussing that, but right now I am really only looking at the footage of the Zapruder film itself, which conclusively appears to show that he was struck in the back of the head, not from the front.

By all means, continue to gaze away at the film.  Not sure why since you've made your conclusions already.  Perhaps it keeps you from being bothered by other, more distressing facts.

You may not be able to cure blindness, but please don't give up on finding a treatment for your chronic myopic tendencies.

Edited by hacktorp, 21 October 2012 - 07:04 PM.


#446    MID

MID

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 14,490 posts
  • Joined:06 Aug 2005
  • Gender:Male

  • ...The greatest error is not to have tried and failed, but that in trying, we did not give it our best effort.

Posted 21 October 2012 - 07:04 PM

View PostbooNyzarC, on 20 October 2012 - 10:59 PM, said:

Hmm...  I've got a hell of a lot of respect for you MID.  You're an extremely intelligent and well reasoned man.  Given this statement though, I have to ask when you last watched the Zapruder film.  Has it been a while?




There is absolutely no doubt that his head moved forward initially, not backward.  It was not until the bullet had fully passed through that his entire upper torso reeled backward, which appears to be a convulsion.


Thank you for the kind comments boonY.  In actuality, I've seen all or fragments of the Zapruder film thousands of times since it's been available.  In this case, no less than 10, looking ever-so-carefully for what should've been there, a decidedly forceful forward movement of the head as a 6mm bullet pierced through the skull from back to front.

If I sit there and imagine, I could see alot of movements in people or things, but all I really see is what's there, confirmed not only by the film, but by the ER physicians at Parkland that day, and by the police motorcycle officer riding to the left rear of the limousene, Officer Bobby Hargis,  who's face shield was splattered by ennedy's brain and blood...something that culdn't have physically happened if the President were hit in the back of the head from behind and above.

Physicians treating the President described the massive occipital exit wound (large right rear skull wound).  The film clearly shows a pronounced rearward motion of the head in response to the impulse received from the front.  Not a convulsive maneuver, just a physically simple reaction, which had nothing to do with anything involuntary (Kennedy was basically dead on arrival at Parkland Hospital, Agonal respirations aside.  He was gone.  Convulsions  don't tend to happen with damage like this.   He was gone really close to instantly.  It was just a matter of everything shutting down, or being shut down.

The film also clearly shows a piece of bone plopping on the car's trunk lid...and of course, Mrs. Kennedy getting out on that lid and reaching for it immediately.  That was Occipital bone, the rear exit described by competent, experienced physicians at Parkland Hospital, including Dr. Kemp Clark, Chief of Neurosurgery at Parkland Hospital, and Chairman of the Department of Neurosurgery at the University of Texas, Southwestern Medical School.

We'll just say that the most qualified nerologic physicians in the region spoke clearlty about the wounds the President received in his head and brain.  They conform exactly to what the Zapruder Film shows happened.

This isn't mystery stuff, or anything that's hidden from public view or public eyes.  It's simple, really. You know, Parkland Hospital became the model for what we now typically see in cities nationwide, the TRAUMA CENTER.  Parkland was one...the only ione at the time in the United States.  These people were good, they were specialized, and they knew what they were doing, and what they were looking at.   They all know rthat they were looking at a dead man in that emergency room that day, and, that's exactly what there was in that e.r. that day.


#447    booNyzarC

booNyzarC

    Forum Divinity

  • Closed
  • 13,536 posts
  • Joined:18 Aug 2010
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 21 October 2012 - 07:04 PM

View Posthacktorp, on 21 October 2012 - 06:57 PM, said:

By all means, continue to gaze away at the film.  Not sure why since you've made your conclusions already.  Perhaps it keeps you from being bothered by other, more distressing facts.

By 'looking at' what I intended to convey was that I was focused on it from the perspective of discussion.  I'm not sitting here watching it over and over again if that's the rather bizarre impression you've taken away from this.  As for the "other, more distressing facts" who is to say that I have not looked into any of that before and/or may be looking into it now and in the future?  I haven't made a statement one way or the other regarding other aspects of the case aside from clarifying that I'm not currently discussing them.


View Posthacktorp, on 21 October 2012 - 06:57 PM, said:

You may not be able to cure blindness, but please don't give up on finding a treatment for your chronic myopia.

Well isn't that clever.  Forgive me if I'd prefer to find agreement on one point before moving on to others.  That you are unable to see what I've described is alright with me, I wasn't exactly addressing you in the first place was I?

Run along hacktorp.  I've had my fill of your games for today.


#448    hacktorp

hacktorp

    Remote Viewer

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 550 posts
  • Joined:11 Dec 2010

Posted 21 October 2012 - 07:14 PM

View PostbooNyzarC, on 21 October 2012 - 07:04 PM, said:

Run along hacktorp.  I've had my fill of your games for today.

You clearly have a very large and uncomfortable knot in your undies.  Sorry if I was in any way responsible.

Good luck with it.


#449    MID

MID

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 14,490 posts
  • Joined:06 Aug 2005
  • Gender:Male

  • ...The greatest error is not to have tried and failed, but that in trying, we did not give it our best effort.

Posted 21 October 2012 - 07:35 PM

View Posthacktorp, on 21 October 2012 - 06:57 PM, said:

By all means, continue to gaze away at the film.  Not sure why since you've made your conclusions already.  Perhaps it keeps you from being bothered by other, more distressing facts.

You may not be able to cure blindness, but please don't give up on finding a treatment for your chronic myopic tendencies.


How about if we NOT get out of hand here?

People  (qualified or not) are going to have different interpretations today, 50 years after the fact, and they will 50 years from now, at the 100 year mark.
But, still, criticizing people for their myopia, which you obviously have no business diagnosing, isn't a good tac.  We have senior moderators visiting that wouldn't appreciate your qualifications...


#450    hacktorp

hacktorp

    Remote Viewer

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 550 posts
  • Joined:11 Dec 2010

Posted 21 October 2012 - 07:57 PM

View PostMID, on 21 October 2012 - 07:35 PM, said:

How about if we NOT get out of hand here?

People  (qualified or not) are going to have different interpretations today, 50 years after the fact, and they will 50 years from now, at the 100 year mark.
But, still, criticizing people for their myopia, which you obviously have no business diagnosing, isn't a good tac.  We have senior moderators visiting that wouldn't appreciate your qualifications...

Given the several possible uses for the term "myopic", one might expect others to check the context before making such a criticism.

There are numerous online dictionaries you can use...please avail yourself.





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users