The Prosecution of GW BUSH for MURDER - Page 2 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 07-09-2008, 06:47 PM   #21
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 03:26 AM
Not just speculation, recycled and refuted speculation; I'm waiting for umbrella man and the three railway hobos to make an appearance.
__________________

A_Wanderer is offline  
Old 07-09-2008, 06:58 PM   #22
ONE
love, blood, life
 
financeguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Ireland
Posts: 10,122
Local Time: 06:26 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by A_Wanderer View Post
You want there to be a conspiracy and have a faith in it that is independent of reality.
The problem with this reasoning is that it can also be used against lone gunman believers - i.e., it could just as easily be said that those who believe in the lone gunman theory want that theory to be true.

Quote:
Originally Posted by A_Wanderer View Post
Not to mention that how many people believe has no impact on reality; lot's of people believe in Allah but that doesn't make that entity true. People think that having dead bodies around makes the living sick, again not true. People thought that objects of different mass fell at different rates etc.
Irrelevant.


Quote:
Originally Posted by A_Wanderer View Post
Just because people believe in a conspiracy (after decades of talk shows, pseudo-documentaries and blockbuster movies) that doesn't mean that there was an orchestrated plot to kill Kennedy from within the government..
Again, the corollary is also applicable. Just because people believe in the government approved theory (after decades of pro-lone gunman theory propaganda), that doesn't mean that Lee Harvey Oswald was the only person involved.


Quote:
Originally Posted by A_Wanderer View Post
I am not sure if they are different than the ones he started with or if he had a problem changing his ideas on the basis of evidence, but given his apparent character I doubt that he would shy away from changing his mind on dearly held issues if he recognised he felt that he was wrong before.

If you think a committed Muslim or Christian is of good character, does that make you as an atheist more likely to reconsider your position? Of course it doesn't.
__________________

financeguy is offline  
Old 07-09-2008, 06:59 PM   #23
ONE
love, blood, life
 
financeguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Ireland
Posts: 10,122
Local Time: 06:26 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by A_Wanderer View Post
Not just speculation, recycled and refuted speculation; I'm waiting for umbrella man and the three railway hobos to make an appearance.
And I'm waiting for proof of the magical power than transformed a notoriously poor shooter to the world's most clinical assassin, albeit for one day only.
financeguy is offline  
Old 07-09-2008, 07:13 PM   #24
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,885
Local Time: 12:26 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by financeguy View Post
And I'm waiting for proof of the magical power than transformed a notoriously poor shooter to the world's most clinical assassin, albeit for one day only.
What is your evidence that he was a notoriously poor shooter? The conspiracy community has won the PR battle in this area, despite the evidence to the contrary. Oswalds rifle qualifications in the military show he was above average. Take that and compare it to the average citizen, he is a more than average shot. Take into account that the conspiracy community does not like to reference the fact that Oswalds weapons qualifications show that he was a better shot at moving targets than he was a stationary ones. The vehicle traveled from left to right making the shot easier, the vehcle was less than a football field away from him, and actually slowed down after the first shot was fired.....

Yes - it is sad to think that the consiracy community has us all convinced he was a sucky shot.

People also seem to forget that he attempted to assasinate General Edwin Walker a few months prior to the assasination, and missed due to the bullet nicking the window pane.

He managed to gun down the police officer with no problem at all after the assasination.

Yep.....terrible shot.
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 07-09-2008, 07:21 PM   #25
ONE
love, blood, life
 
financeguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Ireland
Posts: 10,122
Local Time: 06:26 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreadsox View Post
What is your evidence that he was a notoriously poor shooter? The conspiracy community has won the PR battle in this area, despite the evidence to the contrary. Oswalds rifle qualifications in the military show he was above average. Take that and compare it to the average citizen, he is a more than average shot. Take into account that the conspiracy community does not like to reference the fact that Oswalds weapons qualifications show that he was a better shot at moving targets than he was a stationary ones. The vehicle traveled from left to right making the shot easier, the vehcle was less than a football field away from him, and actually slowed down after the first shot was fired......
Anything I have read indicates that he was a poor shot.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreadsox View Post
People also seem to forget that he attempted to assasinate General Edwin Walker a few months prior to the assasination, and missed due to the bullet nicking the window pane.

He managed to gun down the police officer with no problem at all after the assasination.

Yep.....terrible shot.

An awful lot of valid questions have been raised regarding Oswald's involvement in BOTH of these incidents.

Apart from anything else, where is the logic in Oswald attempting to assassinate the right wing Walker, and then successfully assassinating the liberal leaning Kennedy? Unless he was just a complete nut, but actually there is no psychiatric indication that would substantiate that claim.

But anyway, assuming for the sake of argument that he DID attempt to assassinate Walker, well, as you said, he obviously missed.

Officer Tippit was gunned down at close range if I remember correctly.

So really, these incidents aren't very helpful in attempting to show that Oswald was an expert marksman!
financeguy is offline  
Old 07-09-2008, 07:26 PM   #26
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,885
Local Time: 12:26 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by A_Wanderer View Post
Don't produce the evidence, don't try to refute the refutations of conspiracy "theories" just go for the ad hominem against Dread.
The fact is there is NO PHYSICAL EVIDENCE to support more than one gunman.

Quote:
You want there to be a conspiracy and have a faith in it that is independent of reality, my understanding is that Dread changed his mind on the basis of researching different sources and has a justified position.
I think that Lee Harvey Oswald was some type of government agent. I think eventually, history will prove this out on some level. He may have been a double agent. I used to believe there was more than one shooter. I no longer believe this. I strongly believe he was indeed the shooter.

[Q]Your only critical to one side of any argument, and seem to characterise the other as malicious, that isn't critical thinking and it's a weakness that you can fix. Employ the method of multiple working hypothesis about an issue, don't become emotional about it and don't reject facts that falsify your contentions.[/Q]

The problem is, that the theory of badgeman that he holds to, has been disproven many moons ago.

Quote:
Dread is in the minority of those that was interested, researched and reached conclusions. I am not sure if they are different than the ones he started with or if he had a problem changing his ideas on the basis of evidence, but given his apparent character I doubt that he would shy away from changing his mind on dearly held issues if he recognised he felt that he was wrong before.
If you look at the theories - Badgeman, Umbrealla Man, The Three Tramps - many of these theories were hatched due to the sealing of evidence to protect sources, governement operations, and in my opinion, the fact that the government - like on 9/11 new enough but did not connect the dots.

After Oliver Stones movie - which was a success by getting documents unsealed and revealed - has come revelations that disprove MANY of the theories that had circulated for years. Unfortunately due to the web, the conspiracies that have been disproved in subsequent research since 1993 due to the release of said documents (the names of the three hobos - not E Howard Hunt and Frank Stugis) still carry vailidity.

My research right now leads me to Oswald being the shooter. Oswald in my opinion HAS to have been an agent of the US government, the Soviet Government, or the Cuban Government. I think he was a double agent. I think he was turned. There are TOO many people with intelligence background in his life.

AS for conspiracy, evidence was hidden to protect the agents of the government, be it they fucked up, or their guy went bad.
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 07-09-2008, 07:38 PM   #27
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,885
Local Time: 12:26 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by financeguy View Post
Anything I have read indicates that he was a poor shot.
Bugliosi and Posner have demonstrated plenty of evidence to the contrary.





Quote:
An awful lot of valid questions have been raised regarding Oswald's involvement in BOTH of these incidents.

Apart from anything else, where is the logic in Oswald attempting to assassinate the right wing Walker, and then successfully assassinating the liberal leaning Kennedy?
Well, it depends on who he was trying to impress. He spent plenty of time trying to develop readical left wing credentials throughout his time in New Orleans.

Yet, he was also (Sylvia Odio) attempting at the same time trying to infiltrate Right Wing organizations who wanted to kill Castro.

If you believe like me that he was attempting to build credentials to enter Cuba, something he attempted to do weeks before he killed Kennedy, there could be a pretty good case that he was sent to defect to the Soviet Union by our government, returned and attempted to build his left wing radical credentials, to get into Cuba to kill Castro.

[Q]Unless he was just a complete nut, but actually there is no psychiatric indication that would substantiate that claim.[/Q]

Have you researched this? There is quite the psychiatric trail, including the psycholigist who worked with him. He did not have a pleasant childhood.

[Q]But anyway, assuming for the sake of argument that he DID attempt to assassinate Walker, well, as you said, he obviously missed. [/Q] Not by much. But did he miss on purpose? I believe he was not alone that night. I believe he was in the process of building his credentials.

[Q]Officer Tippit was gunned down at close range if I remember correctly.

So really, these incidents aren't very helpful in attempting to show that Oswald was an expert marksman![/Q]

I disagree, and you discout the fact that a shot at less than a football fields distace is not that hard on a target moving left to right. You discount the fact that his marksmanship in the military was proven to be better at moving targets.

Although - haha - he did shoot himself in the foot if I remeber correctly while in the service - hahah

My point on Tippet, is why shoot a police officer if you did not shoot the president.

FYI - One of my older theories was that he was shooting at John Connoly and not Kennedy. That was my theory when I believed he was a bad shot. Connoly dishonorably discharged him as Secretary of the Navy, so my old hypothesis was that due to his "POOR MARKSMANSHIP" he hit Kennedy.

Again, Bugliosis and Posner have WELL documented books with actual historical research to back the his marksmanship.
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 07-09-2008, 07:40 PM   #28
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,885
Local Time: 12:26 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Harry Vest View Post
You know what...I've had just about enough of you and your "every theory has been debunked" crap. It has not. Just face the fact that there are hundreds of thousands of people who disagree with you (as there are with me) and get on with it.

Bring EVIDENCE and stop personlizing. Thousands if people have been wrong before.
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 07-09-2008, 07:48 PM   #29
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 03:26 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by financeguy View Post
The problem with this reasoning is that it can also be used against lone gunman believers - i.e., it could just as easily be said that those who believe in the lone gunman theory want that theory to be true.
Oswald as the shooter doesn't imply that Oswald was a lone nut acting entirely alone. I am perfectly comfortable with the contention that the CIA was a rogue agency at the time and there were those in the government with an interest in eliminating JFK. I think that it is more important to establish those connections than continuing to go down the road of multiple shooter hypotheses which haven't stood up.
Quote:
Irrelevant.
Half of all Americans believe the Earth is 6000 years old, it doesn't make it so. What happened on that day in Dallas has little to do with what people believed happened. Appealing to what people believe is what is truly irrelevant.
Quote:
Again, the corollary is also applicable. Just because people believe in the government approved theory (after decades of pro-lone gunman theory propaganda), that doesn't mean that Lee Harvey Oswald was the only person involved.
Your right about the possibility of other people being involved involved, I think you are wrong about multiple shooters. I think that by spending decades trying to refute the best fit model of a single shooter with sometimes zany conspiracy theories those pushing a conspiratorial explanation have allowed themselves to get discredited.

Oswald was involved with parties that had an interest in getting Kennedy out of the way, establishing those links would be much more productive than going down the dead end of trying to make a multiple shooter model fit when a single shooter model works.
Quote:
If you think a committed Muslim or Christian is of good character, does that make you as an atheist more likely to reconsider your position? Of course it doesn't.
Dread makes an argument that appeals to evidence, he takes the time to refute specific claims and comes to the argument with an open mind.
A_Wanderer is offline  
Old 07-09-2008, 07:53 PM   #30
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,885
Local Time: 12:26 PM
FYI - There will be a show on the Discovery Channel on November 4th I believe that will be dealing with the physical evidence of the presidential limo. There may be physical evidence presented that may support more than one gunman.

There certainly is enough evidence that LBJ certainly wanted the public to believe that there was one gunman.

I would also say, that Posner and Bugliosi do not make much reference to the physical evidence surrounding the limo. It troubles me that they stripped it down so quickly after the assasination - within a week I believe. Is it incompetance? I am looking forward to this show.
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 07-09-2008, 08:24 PM   #31
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,885
Local Time: 12:26 PM
Here is a map detailing many of the things people saw at the time of the assasination.

http://members.aol.com/DRoberdeau/JFK/DP.jpg
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 07-09-2008, 09:09 PM   #32
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
U2DMfan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: It's Inside A Black Hole
Posts: 6,637
Local Time: 11:26 AM
For years I believed in some of those JFK conspiracies, in fact I would think that dreadsox and I (maybe even harry vest) had conversations about it in past threads.
But I'm off that train.

I always fell back on the magic bullet.
Then I saw the illustrations of how they were truly seated in the limo.
=perfect sense
Felt ridiculous for having believed it in the first place.
Thanks, Oliver and the internetz.

Then I doubted the fact that Oswald could have fired 3 times in such a short span.
Then I saw a 70 year old man do it, not once but two or three times. With time to spare.
=crumbling away

This is among other evidence I read from the time I was 16-25 (whatever) but I can't be a critical thinker and discount evidence of this sort. It defies sound reason.

I can, like A_W, consider that LHO was working on behalf of someone but I can no longer seriously consider that anyone else fired the gun but him.

He was a decent marksman, his scores were above average and in fact, I think this was always available to the public it just got caught up in the propaganda swirl. I may be mistaken about if it were available to the public for years but the fact was and is, he could have easily made those shots.

Besides all this, the Goverment that can't orchestrate a break in of a hotel for political reasons, further can't keep the news from the press, further can't conceal the origins is to be believed that they could do this to their own President? Maybe but not very likely at all.
This seems to be force fitting.

Anyone want to talk aliens? Now that is some fun conspiracy.
U2DMfan is offline  
Old 07-09-2008, 10:02 PM   #33
Refugee
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Winnipeg, Canada
Posts: 2,455
Local Time: 12:26 PM
"{FYI - One of my older theories was that he was shooting at John Connoly and not Kennedy..."

You're kidding right???
Harry Vest is offline  
Old 07-09-2008, 10:16 PM   #34
Refugee
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Winnipeg, Canada
Posts: 2,455
Local Time: 12:26 PM
It's funny how the prosecution of murder for George W. Bush has turned into yet another full on Kennedy debate. Let's face it guys we'll never agree on this one. Some of you must be in Law school or have taken law - you always reach for so called "facts" and "physical evidence" - which is fine. Our brains work differently. Mine says there is certainly enough "evidence" and "facts" of SOMETHING happening that day that the Government did NOT tell us and most certainly hid from us. Quibbling about bullets and Lee Harvey Oswalds abilities as a marksman has it's place but it just seems to me to be much deeper than that. Dreadsox, you seem to have an answer to everything...just for curiosity's sake answer me this please...Why did Jack Ruby kill Lee Harvey Oswald? What possible reason did he have to do so? And did or did not Lee Harvey Oswald say he was a "patsy" and did he or did he not look like he really didn't know what was happening when the camera's first caught him in the police station and the reporters were shouting at him. He sure looked like a "patsy". I know there are a hundred other possibly better questions but I'm just wondering what you think of those???
Harry Vest is offline  
Old 07-10-2008, 12:09 AM   #35
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,885
Local Time: 12:26 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Harry Vest View Post
Dreadsox, you seem to have an answer to everything...just for curiosity's sake answer me this please...Why did Jack Ruby kill Lee Harvey Oswald? What possible reason did he have to do so? And did or did not Lee Harvey Oswald say he was a "patsy" and did he or did he not look like he really didn't know what was happening when the camera's first caught him in the police station and the reporters were shouting at him. He sure looked like a "patsy". I know there are a hundred other possibly better questions but I'm just wondering what you think of those???
I do not agree with Posner and others on this. It fits with my agent gone bad scenario. There is circumstantial evidence that Oswald had made contact with these groups in New Orleans. Guy Bannister certainly knew of him and would have had his eye on him. My theory is that one of these groups with ties to the Marcello organization decided that he at least had some type of information that was damaging to them.

As for him being a patsy - how could he be a patsy - if he killed Tippet?

We also have the transcripts of his police interrogations while he was alive and in custody. He was caught in multiple lies. If you were a patsy, why would you continue to lie? What is the motivation?

If we are talking conspiracy? Could Oswald have been involved in one of these groups connected to the Mob, and the Mob portion of the group decided that Kennedy must go? Then yes, that could be possible. It does not mean that there was more than one shooter. It means that Oswald was told to do it. In my opinion, this would explain the Ruby portion of the story as well.

He either knew too much? Or he was told to do it? In either case, it explains Ruby. There is plenty of evidence that Ruby acted spontaneously. Oswald was not supposed to be moved at the time he was moved. Ruby happened to be there and left his favorite dog locked in his car in a parking garage. I know it sounds silly, but there is so much testimony that he loved his dogs more than his own life, calling them his children, that would leave one to think he was being spontaneous with his killing of Oswald. He did not plan to do it do to the fact that his dog was left in the car, potentially for a long time. One of the things he asked the police officers to do upon his interrogation was to get his dog out of the car.

In my opinion, the coverup and sealing of documents, was more about protecting CIA/Mob operations, than conspiracy by government to kill the president.
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 07-10-2008, 12:15 AM   #36
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,885
Local Time: 12:26 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Harry Vest View Post
"{FYI - One of my older theories was that he was shooting at John Connoly and not Kennedy..."

You're kidding right???

Nope. At the time I believed he was a bad shot. I know differently now. Oswald was upset enough to write to John Connoly to change his discharge from the marines to honorable when he returned from Russia. The theory I had at the time was that he was so pissed, indeed I would be if I were set up to look like a genuine defector in an intelligence operation, and I had my own government change my discharge from honorable to dishonorable, I potentially would be pissed. If I were such a BAD shot, and I were shooting at the man who I held responsible for that discharge drive by with the President, I may take a shot or two at him and accidently hit the president.

Like I said, my research and reading would lead me to believe he was not that bad a shot. He was not aiming at Connoly.
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 07-10-2008, 08:13 AM   #37
Blue Crack Addict
 
U2girl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: slovenija
Posts: 21,078
Local Time: 07:26 PM
I think there was more than one man (we'll probably never know the truth) because

- Oswald said he was a patsy shorty after he was arrested (plus, why else would he be killed that soon after the arrest ?)

- Former U.S. Marine snipers Craig Roberts and Gunnery Sergeant Carlos Hathcock, (who was the senior instructor for the U.S. Marine Corps Sniper Instructor School at Quantico, Virginia) both said it could not be done as described by the FBI investigators. “Let me tell you what we did at Quantico,” Hathcock said. “We reconstructed the whole thing: the angle, the range, the moving target, the time limit, the obstacles, everything. I don’t know how many times we tried it, but we couldn’t duplicate what the Warren Commission said Oswald did. Now if I can’t do it, how in the world could a guy who was a non-qual on the rifle range and later only qualified 'marksman' do it?”

- Thirty-five earwitnesses who were present at the shooting thought that shots were fired from in front of the President — from the area of the Grassy Knoll or Triple Underpass — while 56 earwitnesses thought the shots came from the Depository, or at least in that direction, behind the President, and 5 earwitnesses thought that the shots came from two directions

- Robert McClelland, a physician in the emergency room who observed the head wound, testified that the back right part of the head was blown out with posterior cerebral tissue and some of the cerebellar tissue was missing. The size of the back head wound, according to his description, indicated it was an exit wound, and that a second shooter from the front delivered the fatal head shot. (consider also the "grassy knoll puff of smoke" theory and the violent movement of the head to the back in the film)

- The weight of the bullet fragments taken from Connally and those remaining in his body supposedly totaled more than could have been missing from the bullet found on Connally's stretcher, known as the "pristine bullet". However, witness testimony seems to indicate that only tiny fragments, of less total mass than was missing from the bullet, were left in Connally. In addition, the trajectory of the bullet, which hit Kennedy above the right shoulder blade and passed through his neck (according to the autopsy) supposedly would have had to change course to pass through Connally's chest and wrist.

U2girl is offline  
Old 07-10-2008, 09:08 AM   #38
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,885
Local Time: 12:26 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by U2girl View Post
I think there was more than one man (we'll probably never know the truth) because

- Oswald said he was a patsy shorty after he was arrested (plus, why else would he be killed that soon after the arrest ?)
What would you say after being caught murdering a police officer and the president? Why did oswald attempt to fire his weapon upon his arrest in the theater? Do you know many people who attempt to kill police officers when they are innocent? Please read my comments above.

Quote:
Former U.S. Marine snipers Craig Roberts and Gunnery Sergeant Carlos Hathcock, (who was the senior instructor for the U.S. Marine Corps Sniper Instructor School at Quantico, Virginia) both said it could not be done as described by the FBI investigators. “Let me tell you what we did at Quantico,” Hathcock said. “We reconstructed the whole thing: the angle, the range, the moving target, the time limit, the obstacles, everything. I don’t know how many times we tried it, but we couldn’t duplicate what the Warren Commission said Oswald did. Now if I can’t do it, how in the world could a guy who was a non-qual on the rifle range and later only qualified 'marksman' do it?”
The funny thing about quotes, is when they are taken out of context it is difficult to interpret based on the quote alone. I can tell you that Oswald was not a non-qual on his initial rifle qualification in the Marines. I can tell you that on a requalification before he left the Marines he had to qualify twice. Having not been there, I do not know the conditions of the requalification. I had a weapon malfunction during a qualification that significantly lowered my last weapons qualification. I still passed, however, my point is that I was someone who was a potential candidate for sniper school due to my ability to hit targets three football fields away. Does that one qulaification mean I was a suck shot? No.

Now as for context of the Marine SGTS statement, I would say to you is he trying to duplicate the shots when the Warren Commission says they occured. There is still GREAT debate in the assassination community over this issue, and I for one, am doubtful that they have the shots at the correct times. There is some pretty good research out there that demonstrates that Zapruder and other film footage that the people who caught the assasination on film had some hand movement with each shot due to reflex action. I think the Warren Commission did the best that they could, but on the timing of the shots, they got it wrong, and some of the hand movements on the film demonstrate that indeed they may have had the timing wrong.

As for his statement I do believe it applies to the time fame of the Warren Commission shots. And the SGT is correct, if the shots occured in the Warren Commission timeline it would be virtually impossible for Oswald to have done it. I for one, believe their timeline was wrong.

Quote:
Thirty-five earwitnesses who were present at the shooting thought that shots were fired from in front of the President — from the area of the Grassy Knoll or Triple Underpass — while 56 earwitnesses thought the shots came from the Depository, or at least in that direction, behind the President, and 5 earwitnesses thought that the shots came from two directions
Have you been to Dealy Plaza? The accoustical analysis done by the House Select Committee of Dealy Plaza demonstrated that the Plaza produced echos. They placed mirophones all around the Plaza attempting to analyize the dictabelt recording. Earwitnesses are great - but the accoustical analysis of the Plaza with echos could prodice the same result.

The employees on the floor below the assasins nest, heard the shots above them and heard the brass hitting the floor after the empty metal jacket was ejected from the rifle. The telling statement that you made is the nimber five. Five out of all of the people felt they came from two directions. If there was more than one shooter, that number should be higher.



Quote:
- Robert McClelland, a physician in the emergency room who observed the head wound, testified that the back right part of the head was blown out with posterior cerebral tissue and some of the cerebellar tissue was missing. The size of the back head wound, according to his description, indicated it was an exit wound, and that a second shooter from the front delivered the fatal head shot. (consider also the "grassy knoll puff of smoke" theory and the violent movement of the head to the back in the film)
Dr. McClelland did not conduct the autopsy. He was in the heat of the moment attempting to save the life of the President. The beveling of the wound in the Presidents skull, and the patterns in the skull at the point of impact indicate one shot and one shot only. The bullet fragments from the impact to the presidents head which remained in what was left of his brain left a trail from back to front. There are no bullet fragments that made its way into the left hemisphere of the Presidents head. It is impossible to shoot him from the grassy knoll side in the head and NOT have any bullet fragments in the left hemisphere of his brain.

As for the puff of smoke, are you implying that they used a musketball? One little known fact is that while filming JFK Oliver Stone could not get a weapon to fire with a puff of smoke. The had to use special effects to make the puff of smoke in the movie. Unless there was a musket fired, there is no puff of smoke from a gun.

AS for the presidents motion, having viewed the Zapruder film at many speeds, and many angles I would say to you have you taken into account that the human body has reflexes. I would say to you have you taken into account the President was wearing a back brace that held him upright. Have you taken into account the forward motion of the vehicle? Have you noticed that when there is an explosion, the exiting debris tends to push the object away from the exiting debris.

I would recommend viewing this :http://hometown.aol.com/droberdeau/i...backdamage.gif Tell me the back of his head blew out? I see from the ear forward towards the eye socket.



Quote:
The weight of the bullet fragments taken from Connally and those remaining in his body supposedly totaled more than could have been missing from the bullet found on Connally's stretcher, known as the "pristine bullet". However, witness testimony seems to indicate that only tiny fragments, of less total mass than was missing from the bullet, were left in Connally. In addition, the trajectory of the bullet, which hit Kennedy above the right shoulder blade and passed through his neck (according to the autopsy) supposedly would have had to change course to pass through Connally's chest and wrist.
The"pristine bullet" is not pristine. The discovery channel one year ago conducted an exact experiment of the shot. They used ballistics gell, and sheep bone and lined the dummies up in exactly the same position Connoly and Kennedy were in at the time of the shot. If you look at the actual seating arrangements, they were not directly in front of each other. You are correct, that the bullet would have had to mysteriously move to make the shot if the seats were not aligned in the manner they are in reality. Long story short, the Discovery Channel was able to fire the bullet through the ballistics material duplicating Kennedy's back and kneck, it made its way through that material and into the material representing Connoly's ribs and wrist. The bullet was in tact after hitting all of the material, yet it was not Pristine.

The argument agains the "magic bullet" generally does not take into account the seating arrangement inside of the vehicle, and the angle at which the vehicle was traveling away from the sniper's nest.
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 07-10-2008, 09:53 AM   #39
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,885
Local Time: 12:26 PM
Quote:
(consider also the "grassy knoll puff of smoke" theory and the violent movement of the head to the back in the film)
Well, I found my physics evidence:O)

Quote:
Abstract

Compelling as JFK's dramatic rearward lurch in the Zapruder film may seem to be for a shot from the front and thereby conspiracy, it is not necessarily so. For one thing, it is preceded by a quick forward snap of his head. For another, its rearward acceleration extends over too many frames to be directly from a bullet. For a third, some degree of lurch ought to be expected in reaction to the mass of brain matter hurled forward as his head exploded. Nevertheless, the lurch remains the most popular piece of evidence for conspiracy in the assassination.
The question here is quantitative rather than qualitative. Is enough material hurled forward fast enough to throw the body backward with the observed speed? There is no reason this cannot be investigated with simple physics, yet it has not been done. One sets up the equations for conservation of momentum and total energy, provides reasonable estimates for the several quantities involved, and solves for the speed of the lurch, using as major factors the bullet, the head, the body, the two large fragments hurled forward, and the diffuse cloud also hurled forward. For those quantities that cannot be estimated reliably, ranges of values can be used.
This monograph shows how to do all this, which gets complicated in practice even though not in principle. It begins with the measurements of JFK's motions as reported by Josiah Thompson in Six Seconds in Dallas. To these it applies sixteen simulations, two for the snap and 14 for the lurch. Both snap and lurch were calculated in rotational as well as translational coordinates, with the lurch getting seven levels of increasing complexity. More than 30 variables were eventually included. The important ones were identified in two ways, by examining how the answers changed when they were added to the simulations and by sensitivity tests for each simulation. Seven of the variables eventually stood out as being most important.
The monograph asks and answers four basic questions:

Can the forward snap be accounted for by a rearward shot from Lee Harvey Oswald's rifle? Answer: Yes, with ease.
Can the initial rearward lurch of head and body be accounted for by a rearward shot from the same rifle? Answer: Yes, with ease.
Must a rearward shot from this rifle have created a rearward lurch similar to that observed? Answer: Yes, provided only that a cloud of brain matter was thrown forward.
Can a forward shot from the grassy knoll explain all or part of the rearward lurch? Answers: No and qualified yes.
It does its work in five major sections. The first contains five introductory chapters that deal with the movements, the appropriate physics and wound ballistics, and the variables to be used. The second section contains two chapters that show that the forward snap is easily explained by a bullet from the rear. The third section contains 16 chapters that go through the 14 simulations for the lurch and show the default solutions and the most important variables. The default solutions converge on the actual initial lurch as soon as a three-dimensional cloud of fragments from the explosion is incorporated. In other words, the initial lurch can easily be explained physically. The fourth section is composed of seven chapters that examine the limits to the answers for the lurch, via a series of built-in constraints, such as that the mass of the head is limited to 5–7 lb. The observed rearward lurch is a natural consequence of a forward-moving cloud and nothing more. For example, one need not know the mass of the head, the mass of the cloud, or the speed of the cloud—it all takes care of itself in the math. These results strongly imply that there is little or no room in the solution for a hit from the front, such as from the grassy knoll. The fifth section follows up on this idea in more detail by examining whether a hit from the front could have produced all or part of the initial lurch. The answer is a solid no for the entire lurch, but a qualified yes for adding a small amount of speed to it (but there is no independent evidence for this). The last section explores the implications of these results for our understanding of the assassination. The explanation for JFK's motions resolves the last open piece of physical evidence. Not only does it destroy the myth of the frontal shooter once and for all, but it also unifies the physical evidence into a solid picture of all the damage being done by a single shooter from the rear with Oswald's rifle. The section continues by considering several objections to this work and answering them, and concludes by offering some refinements to be worked on in the future.
The physics of the head shot

Enjoy - I love physics.
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 07-10-2008, 10:22 AM   #40
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,885
Local Time: 12:26 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Harry Vest View Post
"{FYI - One of my older theories was that he was shooting at John Connoly and not Kennedy..."

You're kidding right???
I new there was a reason I went down this path -

Quote:
13. HORRIBLE ACCIDENT THEORY

Proponent: Marina Oswald.

In her final testimony before the Commission, Marina Oswald advanced her own theory of Lee’s motive. She said she believed her husband was actually trying to shoot Governor John Connally, and missed, and by a horrible accident he killed the President.
__________________

Dreadsox is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:26 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2022, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com
×