Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 4
striker7

JFK Assassination

509 posts in this topic

But after 50 years, to me anyway, it still doesn't ring true. He may have been a small fish until he shot at JFK,

But did he shoot at JFK?

I don't recall any evidence of that, nor any evidence that JFK was struck in the head from the rear (quite the contrary, actually.).

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But did he shoot at JFK?

I don't recall any evidence of that, nor any evidence that JFK was struck in the head from the rear (quite the contrary, actually.).

Ha! Good point. I believe Oswald shot at shot JFK and one of those shots richoted and hit James Tague. Don't know if Oswald hit JFK but I do believe that he was not the only gunman.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ha! Good point. I believe Oswald shot at shot JFK and one of those shots richoted and hit James Tague. Don't know if Oswald hit JFK but I do believe that he was not the only gunman.

Given the fact thet Kennedy was fatally struck in the head from the front, I'd say you have something there. I don't, nor does anyone, klnow who shot the President that day. Oswald may have fired, but we don't know that either!

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Given the fact thet Kennedy was fatally struck in the head from the front, I'd say you have something there. I don't, nor does anyone, klnow who shot the President that day. Oswald may have fired, but we don't know that either!

I like your use of the word 'given'. I agree. Frontal head shot. Nothing else makes any sense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm afraid that I still don't agree with the conclusion that he was shot from the front.

The Zapruder footage is clear. When the bullet initially struck, his head jerks forward. After the bullet exits, but not before the skull flap has fully extended, his entire upper torso reels backward in an apparent convulsion. With the initial impact though, his head clearly jerks toward the front. This is due to the bullet's momentum. First as it impacts with the back of the skull, and again as it impacts with the inner surface at the front of the skull. This would not happen if he were shot from the front.

Slightly more graphic reasoning comes with observation of the frontal skull flap itself, which also jerks toward the front as the bullet is exiting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm afraid that I still don't agree with the conclusion that he was shot from the front.

Well gosh...now that Arlen Specter has departed us, that pretty much leaves you to carry that tattered, moth-eaten banner!

Arlen+Spector.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, that's compelling. :no:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, that's compelling. :no:

Lol...much more so than the Warren Report, eh?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lol...much more so than the Warren Report, eh?

I'm not even talking about the Warren Report. I'm talking about my own observations from the footage. It is as clear as day.

Do you disagree that the initial movement of his head upon impact is forward? What else but the momentum of the bullet would cause that? From a basic physics standpoint. This jolt takes place before any muscle in his body has an opportunity to react.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not even talking about the Warren Report. I'm talking about my own observations from the footage. It is as clear as day.

Do you disagree that the initial movement of his head upon impact is forward? What else but the momentum of the bullet would cause that? From a basic physics standpoint. This jolt takes place before any muscle in his body has an opportunity to react.

Yeah I know...I was just making note of Mr. "Single Bullet" having passed.

I would disagree the film offers conclusive information in that regard. It has limited value for ballistics evidence and had been compromised by handlers very early-on through frame deletions anyway.

There are other sources than that film if you're seeking something "compelling".

Edited by hacktorp
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

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!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

His head goes backwards.

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

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

That's the point I'm making.

That head shot does not come from behind JFK.

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Are you just arguing for the sake of arguing?

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

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 4

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.