JFK Assassination

[booNyzarC]

I'm afraid I still disagree MID.

[MID]

I'm afraid I still disagree MID.

Does sound rather counterintuitive doesn't it??

take a look. High speed photography, the entry is on the left, exit on the right.

This is the effect I described.

Typical.

[booNyzarC]

Does sound rather counterintuitive doesn't it??

take a look. High speed photography, the entry is on the left, exit on the right.

This is the effect I described.

Typical.

Some will come out the entry hole, yes, but the majority of material will eject from the exit hole.

Surely the videos of the watermelon make this clear? As do these photos:

We see a very similar thing in the Zapruder film, despite its marginal quality. You can see the ejected material from the entrance wound spray out and upward, similar to the second image above. The bullet penetrated from the back.

There is no way that fatal shot came from the right front.

[Left-Field]

There is no way that fatal shot came from the right front.

Wrong.

Regarding the JFK assassination as a whole, there is numerous amounts of information that would lead any reasonable and logical person to the conclusion there is far more to what happened that day than the government has told us.

Oswald did not act alone, and likely didn't even fire a shot at President Kennedy (alhough I do believe he was involved in the conspiracy, or at least aware of it).

Furthermore, the doctors that operated on Kennedy state the wounds to the front of his neck and forehead were entry wounds (yet, for some reason, people would rather believe the government's statements blindly rather than listen to the people who actually handled the body before the government was able to tamper with it).

And yes, Kennedy's wounds were tampered with, another bit of information confirmed by the doctors that operated on him.

Edited July 23, 2012 by Angel Left Wing

[Habitat]

Wrong.

Regarding the JFK assassination as a whole, there is numerous amounts of information that would lead any reasonable and logical person to the conclusion there is far more to what happened that day than the government has told us.

Oswald did not act alone, and likely didn't even fire a shot at President Kennedy (alhough I do believe he was involved in the conspiracy, or at least aware of it).

Furthermore, the doctors that operated on Kennedy state the wounds to the front of his neck and forehead were entry wounds (yet, for some reason, people would rather believe the government's statements blindly rather than listen to the people who actually handled the body before the government was able to tamper with it).

And yes, Kennedy's wounds were tampered with, another bit of information confirmed by the doctors that operated on him.

So the people on the floor below who heard the four shell casings drop onto the wooden floor above them, were hearing things ?

[Left-Field]

So the people on the floor below who heard the four shell casings drop onto the wooden floor above them, were hearing things?

Whether they were hearing things or not isn't the issue. The issue is whether anyone witnessed Oswald fire the shots, let alone see him on the sixth floor of the depository at the time of the shooting.

Shots being fired from the sixth floor perch does not equate to Oswald did it. There is no reason to think those shots couldn't have been fired by someone else.

[Antilles]

I'm afraid that I simply don't understand how people can come to that conclusion from the Zapruder film.

It seems quite obvious to me that he was shot from behind. The entrance wound is also quite clear in this autopsy sketch.

I'm not saying that there couldn't have been some kind of conspiracy, but I've seen nothing which would convince me that he was shot from the front or the side.

The Zapruder film shows one angle and we are very fortunate to have it as a reference. I watch it and I look at the autopsy photos and I see an entrance wound from the front blowing out the back of JFK's head.

[Antilles]

Wrong.

Regarding the JFK assassination as a whole, there is numerous amounts of information that would lead any reasonable and logical person to the conclusion there is far more to what happened that day than the government has told us.

Oswald did not act alone, and likely didn't even fire a shot at President Kennedy (alhough I do believe he was involved in the conspiracy, or at least aware of it).

Furthermore, the doctors that operated on Kennedy state the wounds to the front of his neck and forehead were entry wounds (yet, for some reason, people would rather believe the government's statements blindly rather than listen to the people who actually handled the body before the government was able to tamper with it).

And yes, Kennedy's wounds were tampered with, another bit of information confirmed by the doctors that operated on him.

Both statements are correct.

You want to take out the President of the United States and you have Oswald thinking he's the guy. Great and then you take him out so no messy stories left. Meanwhile, the professional has taken the shot and he disappears.

You tell me which story makes more sense?

And please, let's not destroy any more watermelons in the pursuit of an answer.....

If Oswald hadn't been killed, I would probably agree with the idea of his being the lone killer. But he was and I don't. Nor is there any absolute, cannot be misinterpreted proof that the magic bullet killed JFK.

Because if you think Oswald was the lone killer then you believe in the magic bullet.

Just didn't happen.

[praetorian-legio XIII]

The things I've always tried to understand about that event are; Why are people pointing at the grassy knoll?, Why does the presidents head move into the "kill" shot?, How could one of the bullets travel in such a bizare path through two men and then turn up in pristene condition on a hospital gurney and why did Ruby assasinate Oswald? So many questions to an event that was broadcast live was on TV.

[MID]

Some will come out the entry hole, yes, but the majority of material will eject from the exit hole.

Surely the videos of the watermelon make this clear? As do these photos:

We see a very similar thing in the Zapruder film, despite its marginal quality. You can see the ejected material from the entrance wound spray out and upward, similar to the second image above. The bullet penetrated from the back.

There is no way that fatal shot came from the right front.

BooNy...

Material does indeed spray upward and outward from the entrance wound. But that wound is also obviously in the right temple area of the President's head. there's actually little chan ce that it came from anywhere else but the front, and a bit off to the right.

Wee, I think you'd get an argument out of the physicians who were experienced in trauma and gunshot wounds who examined the President. Exit wound in right rear of skull.

Further, the Zapruder film shows the exit blast out the rear and I think Police Motorcycle escord Bobby Hargis, who was behind Kennedy, would attest to the fact that his face plate was splattered by brain matter. And of course, the occipital bone found in the street behind the place where the limo was. No way for t to get there unless it exited the skull from a frontal blow.

Of course, people have been arguing this for almost 50 yerars, and probably will continue to do so.

Edited July 24, 2012 by MID

[lightly]

So the people on the floor below who heard the four shell casings drop onto the wooden floor above them, were hearing things ?

Four shell casings.. from three alleged shots? I'm curious as to how people downstairs could hear shell casings land on the floor above with thousands of people outside making noise. Wasn't there some sort of parade going on just outside? ... they heard shell casings land on the floor.. but did not hear SHOTS?

[Habitat]

Four shell casings.. from three alleged shots? I'm curious as to how people downstairs could hear shell casings land on the floor above with thousands of people outside making noise. Wasn't there some sort of parade going on just outside? ... they heard shell casings land on the floor.. but did not hear SHOTS?

Of course they heard the shots, the sound of the casings dropping was between shots obviously.

[Antilles]

Four shell casings.. from three alleged shots? I'm curious as to how people downstairs could hear shell casings land on the floor above with thousands of people outside making noise. Wasn't there some sort of parade going on just outside? ... they heard shell casings land on the floor.. but did not hear SHOTS?

Amazing acoustics in the book depository, don't you think.....

[Habitat]

Amazing acoustics in the book depository, don't you think.....

Shouldn't be hard to check that out, pop in next time your in Dallas.

[Antilles]

Last time I stood on the 6th floor of the school book depository, there was so much noise being made by fellow tourists you could have passed wind behind me and I wouldn't have heard it. Smelt it, yes, heard it, no....

[booNyzarC]

BooNy...

Material does indeed spray upward and outward from the entrance wound. But that wound is also obviously in the right temple area of the President's head. there's actually little chan ce that it came from anywhere else but the front, and a bit off to the right.

Wee, I think you'd get an argument out of the physicians who were experienced in trauma and gunshot wounds who examined the President. Exit wound in right rear of skull.

Further, the Zapruder film shows the exit blast out the rear and I think Police Motorcycle escord Bobby Hargis, who was behind Kennedy, would attest to the fact that his face plate was splattered by brain matter. And of course, the occipital bone found in the street behind the place where the limo was. No way for t to get there unless it exited the skull from a frontal blow.

With all due respect, I still disagree.

I honestly don't see how anyone can reach this conclusion from the film. Immediately after the initial impact, the president's head is jolted forward a few inches as the right frontal portion of his skull is blown out (also to the front), then his body reals backward. Had he been shot from the front, the initial jolt would be backward and we'd see a skull flap from the back of his head. We don't see this.

I also don't see the exit blast out the rear which you speak of in any rendering of the Zapruder film I've seen.

Of course, people have been arguing this for almost 50 yerars, and probably will continue to do so.

Indeed. On this we can certainly agree.

And Angel Left Wing can roll his eyes at me until he's blue in the face for all I care. The Zapruder film is the single biggest proof of impact from behind as far as I'm concerned.

[Left-Field]

And Angel Left Wing can roll his eyes at me until he's blue in the face for all I care. The Zapruder film is the single biggest proof of impact from behind as far as I'm concerned.

(still not blue in the face)

Anyways, you have demonstrated that - like many others who believe the "official" story - you are content to live in either ignorance or denial and willing to accept less from the government in proving their theory than you are from anyone else who has investigated the JFK assassination.

Why is this?

Also, how do you think the United States House Select Committee On Assassinations came to the conclusion in 1978, after two years worth of investigating the JFK assassination, that his death was the "very likely" result of a conspiracy?

What about their investigation do you feel is so flawed?

Do you know of any evidence that proves Oswald shot Kennedy and that he acted alone? If so, can you present it? If not, can you explain why you think it's reasonable to believe Oswald shot Kennedy and acted alone despite the fact there is no proof of this?

I'd go into detail about what we see in the Zapruder film, but you've continually demonstrated no sound explanation will change your beliefs. So instead I'll ask the following.

Why don't you believe the doctors who operated on Kennedy when they state the wound to the front of his head and neck were clearly entry wounds and that the wounds were tampered with once Kennedy's body was taken from the hospital?

Edited July 25, 2012 by Angel Left Wing

[Lilly]

Take personal discussions to PM. Don't resort to name calling (t never helps matters)

[booNyzarC]

(still not blue in the face)

Anyways, you have demonstrated that - like many others who believe the "official" story - you are content to live in either ignorance or denial and willing to accept less from the government in proving their theory than you are from anyone else who has investigated the JFK assassination.

Why is this?

Just to be clear, I was discussing the Zapruder film with MID. I wasn't discussing your conspiracy theory. I was only discussing the footage and what I take from it.

I get that you are passionate about this conspiracy theory. That's fine. Enjoy your fascination with it to your heart's content. I'm not passionate about it. I'm not even very interested in it, and as I've mentioned before I don't have a ton of time to devote to things that don't interest me.

The footage is currently interesting to me, hence why I'm discussing it with someone that I actually enjoy discussing things with. That would be MID.

Feel free to offer your opinions about it. Feel free to go on and on about your conspiracy if you'd like. Feel free to ask me questions.

But don't expect me to answer them if I'm not interested in the direction you're going. This isn't avoidance of legitimate questions. This is lack of interest on my part to devoting the energy required to engage in discussion with you.

And if you decide that you think this means I'm living in ignorance and denial, fine. You can believe whatever kind of BS you want to, whether it is about me or about any given conspiracy.

Cheers.

[Antilles]

(still not blue in the face)

Anyways, you have demonstrated that - like many others who believe the "official" story - you are content to live in either ignorance or denial and willing to accept less from the government in proving their theory than you are from anyone else who has investigated the JFK assassination.

Why is this?

Also, how do you think the United States House Select Committee On Assassinations came to the conclusion in 1978, after two years worth of investigating the JFK assassination, that his death was the "very likely" result of a conspiracy?

What about their investigation do you feel is so flawed?

Do you know of any evidence that proves Oswald shot Kennedy and that he acted alone? If so, can you present it? If not, can you explain why you think it's reasonable to believe Oswald shot Kennedy and acted alone despite the fact there is no proof of this?

I'd go into detail about what we see in the Zapruder film, but you've continually demonstrated no sound explanation will change your beliefs. So instead I'll ask the following.

Why don't you believe the doctors who operated on Kennedy when they state the wound to the front of his head and neck were clearly entry wounds and that the wounds were tampered with once Kennedy's body was taken from the hospital?

Well, boozy says he's not interested and that's fair enough. But I am and I agree with you. The head wound seen at Parkland was identified by the doctors as a front entry wound.

[Left-Field]

I'm not passionate about it. I'm not even very interested in it....

Feel free to ask me questions... but don't expect me to answer them if I'm not interested in the direction you're going. This isn't avoidance of legitimate questions. This is lack of interest on my part to devoting the energy required to engage in discussion (with you).

And if you decide that you think this means I'm living in ignorance and denial, fine.

Your statements fully indicate that you are willing to live in ignorance about the subject. That is not BS. It is fact considering what you state above.

The denial part may be in question, but that's simply because you don't care to educate yourself enough about the topic to realize the truth.

That being the case, it should be clear to everyone - you've said it yourself - that you don't care enough about this subject to properly consider all the information available regarding it. In other words, one can reasonably conclude your thoughts on it are of little worth (if any worth at all) because you don't care to look into all the aspects surrounding it - you pick and choose small areas to address rather than look at the whole subject.

Mind you, this is the same thing conspiracy opponents claim conspiracy theorists do much of the time when presenting their thoughts that stand in contrast to the "official" version of events regarding any event in history.

You claim you've never come across a substantiated conspiracy theory, but when you readily admit to reaching conclusions that fall in line with the "official" version given of events because you don't have the passion, interest, desire, energy, and / or time to look at all of the information available about these events - as opposed to only the information that falls in line with the "official" version, which often comes directly from the government - then it is of little wonder why you have, and never will come across a substantiated conspiracy theory.

At least you admit to not bothering to do much research upon reaching your conclusions though. I'll credit you for that.

Edited July 26, 2012 by Angel Left Wing

[booNyzarC]

Typical.

I guess it makes you feel superior in some way to try to belittle me like this. Enjoy yourself with that.

And if you'd like to discuss the actual footage specifically, I'll be happy to discuss it as my time allows. That is, after all, the only thing I've really commented about.

[Left-Field]

Typical.

I guess it makes you feel superior in some way to try to belittle me like this. Enjoy yourself with that.

And if you'd like to discuss the actual footage specifically, I'll be happy to discuss it as my time allows. That is, after all, the only thing I've really commented about.

Okay, seriously, tell me how what I stated above is not true? How can you, or anyone else (myself included), give a fair take on any given subject without taking into account (or at least trying to consider) all the information available rather than hand picking which aspects they choose to address and information that is to be considered worthwhile?

As for the belittling comment, I have seen your responses to people in the past who hold a viewpoint that differs from your own and you belittle them and / or show them no respect. If you don't like being spoken to in such a tone, then perhaps you shouldn't address others that way.

Also, I sent you a PM awhile ago which I don't believe you've read yet. I don't know if you've purposely chosen not to, or you simply don't realize it is there. If you do choose to read it, however, I think you will see that I was (or at least I fealt I was) addressing you respectufully within that PM.

As for the footage, I may get into that later, although I don't understand how the doctors assessments of Kennedy's wounds can be completely dismissed when talking about the injuries Kennedy incurs in the Zapruder footage.

And again, I am not trying to belittle anyone when I ask - How can you, or anyone else (myself included), give a fair take on any given subject without taking into account (or at least trying to consider) all the information available rather than hand picking which aspects they choose to address and information that is to be considered worthwhile? (regardless of the reasoning for not doing so)

Edited July 26, 2012 by Angel Left Wing

[booNyzarC]

How is what you've stated not true? Okay, I'll spend some time describing the errors in your thinking and the assumptions that you've made.

Your statements fully indicate that you are willing to live in ignorance about the subject. That is not BS. It is fact considering what you state above.

The denial part may be in question, but that's simply because you don't care to educate yourself enough about the topic to realize the truth.

That being the case, it should be clear to everyone - you've said it yourself - that you don't care enough about this subject to properly consider all the information available regarding it.

My statements do not indicate what you claim. My statements indicate that I'm not interested in discussing your conspiracy theory, in particular with you, for reasons previously described.

My statements do not indicate that I'm ignorant of the JFK assassination or conspiracy theories surrounding that event. A decided lack of interest in discussing a subject is not a direct correlation to one's level of knowledge in that subject.

Nor do my statements indicate that I haven't or am unwilling to consider all of the information available about this subject.

I just don't have an interest in discussing the overall topic, in particular with you, for reasons previously stated.

I commented regarding the Zapruder film because I disagree with anyone who says that it is indicative of a shot coming from the right front. I'm specifically addressing that piece of footage, and that piece of footage alone. The footage is the critical piece of evidence because it literally shows the event taking place.

By the way, with the exception of the Zapruder film itself, I haven't commented regarding the accuracy or lack thereof in your conspiracy theory. I haven't suggested that you are wrong, or ignorant, or uneducated, or anything of that nature. I've only commented on the film.

Is that clear enough?

In other words, one can reasonably conclude your thoughts on it are of little worth (if any worth at all) because you don't care to look into all the aspects surrounding it - you pick and choose small areas to address rather than look at the whole subject.

Given that I haven't commented about the overall events and various conspiracies related to this subject, I don't see how you can apply this to me one way or the other. I've only commented about the film, nothing else.

And just because I've not discussed other aspects you seem to think that anything I have to say on the topic is essentially worthless?

This is a logical fallacy on your part, specifically an Ad Hominem.

At best all you can legitimately claim is that I haven't substantially commented on aspects of your conspiracy theory.

As for picking and choosing what to address, sure, I've done that in a sense. I've addressed one particular thing, nothing more. That one particular thing can be judged on it's own merits and it can be analyzed individually. I've not indicated that I disregard other evidential aspects of the case, nor have I indicated that your interpretations of those elements are either correct or incorrect.

Is it alright with you if I address a specific piece of evidence and offer my thoughts, opinions, and perhaps even analysis of that evidence?

You claim you've never come across a substantiated conspiracy theory, but when you readily admit to reaching conclusions that fall in line with the "official" version given of events because you don't have the passion, interest, desire, energy, and / or time to look at all of the information available about these events - as opposed to only the information that falls in line with the "official" version, which often comes directly from the government - then it is of little wonder why you have, and never will come across a substantiated conspiracy theory.

Your whole focus appears to be to discredit any contribution or opinion that I may offer on any conspiracy theory subject.

To summarize your attempted logic:

booN isn't interested in discussing every detail of my JFK conspiracies, therefore every conclusion he has ever reached about conspiracy theories is the result of his ignorance of the real truth and indicative of his compliance with official versions.

Or am I painting you with the wrong brush? Please do correct me if I've misunderstood.

At least you admit to not bothering to do much research upon reaching your conclusions though. I'll credit you for that.

I admitted no such thing.

I told you, quite explicitly in fact, that I wasn't interested in discussing the overall conspiracy with you.

Are we clear yet?

[Left-Field]

(Edited - Sent My Response As A Private Message Instead - Moderators please feel free to delete this post)

Edited July 26, 2012 by Angel Left Wing