508 replies to this topic

[SolarPlexus]

beale947, on 27 October 2010 - 08:18 PM, said:

...Because i'm sure the army would love a way to make bullets do 180 degree turns in mid air...

hehe totally man  

Edited by SolarPlexus, 28 October 2010 - 12:39 AM.

[TK0001]

beale947, on 27 October 2010 - 08:18 PM, said:

Alright, so he may have been a good shooter. Still, unless he could change the laws of physics, I would loved to see how he pulled off the killing shot. Because i'm sure the army would love a way to make bullets do 180 degree turns in mid air...

The killing shot was a straight shot to the back of Kennedy's head. I think you're referring to the "magic bullet", which was the second shot fired, which passed through Kennedy and into Connolly.

Oliver Stone wants us to believe that Kennedy and Connolly were sitting at the same height and directly in-line with each other, both facing straight forward. That's not correct. Kennedy was sitting three inches higher and to the right of Connolly, and Connolly was turned on angle when the second bullet hit them both.

This is an excellent computer-simulated re-enactment of the shot:

Beyond Conspiracy

Go to the 3:00 mark to see the "magic bullet" discussed.

[tribalactivity]

TK0001, on 28 October 2010 - 02:06 PM, said:

The killing shot was a straight shot to the back of Kennedy's head. I think you're referring to the "magic bullet", which was the second shot fired, which passed through Kennedy and into Connolly.

Oliver Stone wants us to believe that Kennedy and Connolly were sitting at the same height and directly in-line with each other, both facing straight forward. That's not correct. Kennedy was sitting three inches higher and to the right of Connolly, and Connolly was turned on angle when the second bullet hit them both.

This is an excellent computer-simulated re-enactment of the shot:

Beyond Conspiracy

Go to the 3:00 mark to see the "magic bullet" discussed.

Cant believe people are gullible enough to believe a magic bullet theory. insult to human intelligence. If JFK Assassination was such a easy open shut case Oswald being the sole assassin, why are all the files secretly locked away? Its obvious there's more to it. When all the information does get revealed i'll be happy to say i wont be one of the fooled ones!

Edited by tribalactivity, 29 October 2010 - 11:27 PM.

[beale947]

That explains nothing...I am refering to the fact that he was shot through the front of his head. You can see the back of his head explode outwards as the bullet exits his head. The exit wound of a bullet in my experience, is very, very similar to what you see in the film.

So tell me, how does Oswald pull that off? I have seen that type of injury/cause of death before.

[andy4]

beale947, on 30 October 2010 - 12:56 AM, said:

That explains nothing...I am refering to the fact that he was shot through the front of his head. You can see the back of his head explode outwards as the bullet exits his head. The exit wound of a bullet in my experience, is very, very similar to what you see in the film.

So tell me, how does Oswald pull that off? I have seen that type of injury/cause of death before.

I think that the head exploding opposite of the bullet is a easily explained. The car was moving so the wind kind of kept the explosion of the head where it happened. Sort of like when you throw something out of a moving car, it stays pretty much where you threw it, unless it is a rock or something like that. But brain matter isn't a rock obviously.

[TK0001]

tribalactivity, on 29 October 2010 - 11:27 PM, said:

Cant believe people are gullible enough to believe a magic bullet theory. insult to human intelligence. If JFK Assassination was such a easy open shut case Oswald being the sole assassin, why are all the files secretly locked away? Its obvious there's more to it. When all the information does get revealed i'll be happy to say i wont be one of the fooled ones!

I can't tell if you agree with me or are insulting me here.

I don't believe in the magic bullet theory either.

And "all" the files aren't secretly locked away, either, as far as I know.

[TK0001]

beale947, on 30 October 2010 - 12:56 AM, said:

That explains nothing...I am refering to the fact that he was shot through the front of his head. You can see the back of his head explode outwards as the bullet exits his head. The exit wound of a bullet in my experience, is very, very similar to what you see in the film.

So tell me, how does Oswald pull that off? I have seen that type of injury/cause of death before.

Every time I see the Zapruder film, I see the front of Kennedy's head explode outward, not the back. Not sure what you're getting at here, but you've moved the goalposts three times in three posts.

[beale947]

So the pointing out of the different flaws in the whole thing is 'moving the goal post?' The back of his head explodes, now there is an 'explosion' at the front of his head, but that is the entry point.

I know the difference between those injuries, having done experiments and seen dead bodies with those injuries.

[SolarPlexus]

[mrcop]

striker7, on 12 October 2010 - 05:17 PM, said:

Do you believe that the JFK Assassination is one of the biggest conspiracy theories in the US?

Why has this event gripped the nation for so long?

because of all the evidence pointing towards a conspiracy

[TK0001]

mrcop, on 03 November 2010 - 03:37 PM, said:

because of all the evidence pointing towards a conspiracy

Untrue.

[mrcop]

TK0001, on 03 November 2010 - 04:00 PM, said:

Untrue.

what

[IamsSon]

The Silver Thong, on 22 October 2010 - 02:40 AM, said:

What I find interesting and casts a shadow on the official story isn't the assassination of JFK but that of Jack Ruby/stien.  Police first said that they thought that Jack Ruby was just another cia agent or secret service agent. They then state that many recognized Jack as a local well known strip club owner in Dallas well known to the police and that they did nothing to question his presence where Oswald got shot. Jack well known to police a strip club owner saddened to the point of murder over JFK, I don't think so. Oswalds death was a hit that was allowed to happen.

Wow!  We agree on something!

ShadowSot, on 23 October 2010 - 02:21 PM, said:

Actually, the gun was a pretty decent rifle and Oswald was a very good marksman.

Oswald was a passable rifle shot, not what any military person would actually consider good enough to be a sniper.  I consistently fired a high scoring "Sharpshooter" or low scoring "Expert", and would still basically have to trust blind luck to hit a moving target with a single-shot rifle.  Snipers who can manage that with any degree of regularity are rare and highly trained professionals.

SolarPlexus, on 24 October 2010 - 10:08 PM, said:

Yup Oswald was not only experienced, but tried to assassinate a US general before !

And FAILED!

TK0001, on 27 October 2010 - 01:09 PM, said:

Nope.

Oswalds military marksmanship records

He was rated a Marksman on one course, and a Sharpshooter on another.

He was definitely not a an expert shot, but he was above average by military standards, which would be a far sight above "average joe" standards.

No matter what Oliver Stove would have us believe to sell movie tickets.

A Marskman is the LOWEST passing score a soldier/Marine can score and still qualify.  Sharpshooter is definitely a better shot, but basically it means you can hit a stationary target with a properly sighted rifle at distances up to 400 meters.  STATIONARY target!  With a particular rifle, for Marines namely an M-1 Garand at that time Oswald would have been qualifying.  That you can fire "Sharpshooter" with an M-1 makes you a passable Marine, not a sniper capable of firing multiple shots in a short time with a bad rifle.

Edited by IamsSon, 03 November 2010 - 04:14 PM.

[TK0001]

IamsSon, on 03 November 2010 - 04:13 PM, said:

A Marskman is the LOWEST passing score a soldier/Marine can score and still qualify.  Sharpshooter is definitely a better shot, but basically it means you can hit a stationary target with a properly sighted rifle at distances up to 400 meters.  STATIONARY target!  With a particular rifle, for Marines namely an M-1 Garand at that time Oswald would have been qualifying.  That you can fire "Sharpshooter" with an M-1 makes you a passable Marine, not a sniper capable of firing multiple shots in a short time with a bad rifle.

Understood. Would agree that a military grade Marksman is a better shot than the average citizen? This is my point.

Also, what do you believe? Did Oswald shoot at all?

[IamsSon]

TK0001, on 03 November 2010 - 04:34 PM, said:

Understood. Would agree that a military grade Marksman is a better shot than the average citizen? This is my point.

Sure, but is that really any kind of standard to consider someone a possible assassin in this case?

Quote

Also, what do you believe? Did Oswald shoot at all?

There is evidence which seems to indicate Oswald was not at the window at the time of the shooting:

Quote

On the morning of the assassination, a number of Depository employees had been putting down flooring on the sixth floor.  About 15 minutes before noon, these employees decided to break for lunch.  Going to the northeast corner of the building, they began to "race" the elevators down to the first floor.  On their way down, they noticed Oswald standing at the elevator gate on the fifth floor (6H349), where he was shouting for an elevator to descend (3H168;  6H337).

   We should recall that when Oswald was seen on the fifth floor at about 11:45, he was shouting for an elevator to take him down.  Apparently this is exactly the course Oswald pursued, if not by elevator, then by the stairs.  Bill Shelley was part of the floor-laying crew that left the sixth floor around 11:45.  He testified  unambiguously that after coming down for lunch he saw Oswald on the first floor near the telephones  (7H390).  Mention of this fact is entirely absent from the Report.

The Commission knew of at least two employees who had  seen Oswald on the first floor between 12:00 and  12:30.  It suppressed this information from the Report, lied in saying that no one had seen Oswald during this time, and cited an incomplete and irrelevant inquiry in support of this drastic misstatement.

   Depository employee Eddie Piper was questioned twice  by Assistant Counsel Joseph Ball.  During one of his appearances, Piper echoed the information he had recorded in an affidavit for the Dallas Police on November 23, 1963, namely, that he saw and spoke with Oswald on the first floor at 12:00  noon (6H383;  l9H499).  Piper seemed certain of this,  and he was consistent in reporting the circumstances  around his brief encounter with Oswald.  Clearly,  this is a direct contradiction of the Report's  statement that no one saw Oswald between 11:55 and  12:30.  The Report, never mentioning this vital piece  of testimony, calls Piper a "confused  witness" (R153).  This too was the opposite of the  truth.  Piper was able to describe events after the shooting in a way that closely paralleled the known  sequence of events (6H385).  There was, in fact, no  aspect of Piper's testimony that indicated he was less  than a credible witness.
      While Piper's having seen Oswald on the first floor at 12:00 does not preclude Oswald's having been at the window at 12:30, it is significant that this information was suppressed from the Report, which makes an assertion  contrary to the evidence.  One aspect of Piper's story  could have weighed heavily in Oswald's defense.  In his  November 23 affidavit, Piper recalled Oswald as having  said "I'm going up to eat" during the short time the two  men met (19H499).  In his testimony, Piper modified this  quotation, expressing his uncertainty whether Oswald had  said "up" or "out" to eat (6H386).  Despite the confusion  over the exact adverb Oswald used, the significant  observation is that he apparently intended to eat at  12:00.  He would most likely have done this on the first  floor in the "domino" room or in the second-floor  lunchroom.  Oswald consistently told the police that he  had been eating his lunch at the time the President was  shot (R600, 613).  The suppression of Piper's story was,  in effect, the suppression of an aspect of Oswald's defense.

Source