Topic: JFK discussion here!

[Cerys]

Rather than clog the other thread, let's do it here.  If only to keep doppelkorn from exploding.

[doppelkorn]

Please stop discussing this. I have informed my contacts at the CIA. Thank you.

[Cerys]

Shan't.  Most recent post from  the other thread:

The Muchmore and Nix films only show a second or two of the actual assassination, basically a bad angle of the headshot moment, they would not have to be altered at all if they didn't show any compromising evidence, however the much later altering of the Zapruder film would obviously have to seem consistent with them for those few seconds. The Zap film does not show the right brake light flashing as the car slows down but the left one does, as the Nix film, however the Muchmore one does show the right brake light flash red.  This proves at least some alteration to me. There may be more inconsistencies but they are of such poor quality it's hard for me to judge at the moment.

The Umbrella man was another liar sent forward to probably obfuscate matters, whether he was there or not - the Umbrella he claimed was the same one from the film was presented to the committee on assassinations, except it didn't have the same number of prongs - hence a totally different make of umbrella.

[Thomas]

My job title on Facebook was, until the other day, listed as 'Shocked Bystander at Assassination of John F. Kennedy'. Now it's 'Actress at Lolita (1962)'. 

I'm actually a student with no job.

Dingoes killed and ate John F. Kennedy.

[dr_christian_troy]

Case closed.

[Famous Mortimer]

I was thinking "this picture ought to have Waxwork Rene in it" and lo and behold, like Where's Wally, he appeared.

[biggytitbo]

My other reply here then

The problem for any rational conspirators (I presume they were rational and not insane ) is that there we hundreds of people in the plaza, any of whom could have been filming or taking photos. In order to be 100% sure, they'd have to make sure they got all the films and photos so they could ensure they were consistent with the ones they altered. But they didn't do this. Many people simply walked away and didnt come forward or be identified for years. It would have taken just one of them to come forward with a photo that showed something different to the ones that had been altered and the whole thing would be exposed.

The other thing is, why would they go to all the risk and trouble of doctoring a film to make it look like he was shot from the front when they wanted us to ink Oswald did it from the rear?

Don't you think it would be slightly easier just to kill Kennedy in a way that was consistent with the cover story they'd use afterwards? Thst way they wouldn't have to potentially doctor hundreds of films and photographs so they all showed the same thing.

Nobody except Steven seriously believes the film is faked do they? Its ludicrous.

[Thomas]

Case closeder.

[Steven]

Yes Titbo, nobody ever alters evidence, that never happens....

I find your analysis a bit ridiculous, you keep making up supposed contentions that only exist in your head. You sound exactly like a bad spectator witnessing a magic trick and trying to work it out. Disinformation thrives on that kind of thinking, that's why magicians employ similar tactics when designing magic tricks.

[Mister Six]

the SBT, which was dreamt up by a lawyer

It's not as implausible as people say. The bulk of the criticism against the SBT relies on Kennedy and Connolly being sat on seats that were raised to the same level (they weren't; Kennedy's was elevated, allowing for a downward trajectory), on the bullet holes in Kennedy's shirt not matching those in his back (they do; his shirt and jacket were bunched up as he was raising his arm, and photos show bunching even when his arm was down earlier in the sequence) and Connolly sitting directly in front of him (he wasn't; the two were sitting diagonally from one another).

There's stuff about the deformation of the bullet, I know, but it's not implausible for that to occur, and in any case it was deformed in cross-section if not lengthways (and if it was faked you'd think they would bother to create a 'realistically' deformed bullet) and the 'planting it on the guerney' thing doesn't make sense - why plant the bullet before the autopsy; what if the other snipers' bullets[nb]Not that there were any, but for the sake of argument...[/nb] were found at the scene? What if the shrapnel found in Kennedy's body didn't match that of the 'planted' bullet?

But my biggest argument against the whole 'multiple gunman' theory is - why? Why set up something so fucking elaborate, with patsies, and multiple gunmen, and planted evidence, and moles in the police, and eventually having to bring in Jack Ruby to plug Oswald? Why shoot Kennedy in the middle of Dallas? Why not just poison him, or nerf him some other way? The guy was off his face on drugs half the time; they couldn't have spiked his uppers? Or use the magical suppositories that 'They' used to assassinate Marilyn Monroe, too?[nb]It's this same lack of logic that makes me pooh-pooh the 9/11 'rigged charges' theory; if your elaborate CIA operation is going to culminate in planes flying into the WTC as a pretext for war in the Middle East, why bother demolishing the buildings, too? It's overkill; two downed passenger jets and a pair of gaping, burning holes in the skyline above NY is more than enough - not to mention the Pentagon crash and other plane. Why bother setting up remote-controlled charges that could have been found - or their installation spotted - thus scuppering the whole plan?[/nb]

[biggytitbo]

It's not implausible, it just didn't happen in this case.

The first bullet,which hit Kennnedy in the back, didn't exit so it could not have hit Connolly.

Thst much was made clear at the autopsy. Not only did it not pass all the way through, it couldn't have without shattering his spine, which it didn't.

So it falls down at step one. But even if we suppose it did pass through, there are at least a dozen other rock solid reasons why it didnt happen as the official story would have it.

[Jean-Luc Prickhard]

It's not implausible, it just didn't happen in this case.

The first bullet,which hit Kennnedy in the back, didn't exit so it could not have hit Connolly.

Thst much was made clear at the autopsy. Not only did it not pass all the way through, it couldn't have without shattering his spine, which it didn't.

So it falls down at step one. But even if we suppose it did pass through, there are at least a dozen other rock solid reasons why it didnt happen as the official story would have it.

How do you know with such certainty? What facts are you privy to that other people aren't?

[Glebe]

Predictably:

[biggytitbo]

I'm not privy to any special facts. Just go through every aspect of the SBT and at each stage it falls down.

On the subject of the trajectory, the HSCA made it quite clear that the only way it lines up vertically is if Kennedy is leaning far forward at the time of the shot. Which he isn't.

Dale Myers managed to dishonestly tweak enough variables in his 3d cartoon to just about squeeze the required trajectory in horizontally. But he fails to mention in his tv specials something most people don't know - buried away on his website is a fairly massive proviso - his trajectory only works is there's a big deflection inside Connolly's body. Since all of the doctors and pathologists who examined the case agree that there was no such deflection his trajectory is bust.

We also know that the only man in the history of the world who operated on Connolly's wrist wound - Dr Charles Gregory was fairly sure the wound was made by a jagged bullet fragment, not a fully intact bullet.

There's also the whole business with CE399, how everyone involved with finding and first handling that bullet, say the one they handled was not the same missile later entered into evidence as CE399. That bullet comes from nowhere and has no chain of evidence and even though it supposedly ripped its way through multiple layers of clothing, skin, flesh and bone there wasn't a single trace of blood, fibres or tissue on it.

We also know the expert who they got to do the ballistics tests fired hundreds of rounds using oswalds rifle and was unable to replicate the state of CE399 on a single occasion.

[legion]

It's quite clear that Ruby is firing blanks whilst a young Brezhnev (far right) stabs Oswald with a sword (blowing a whistle at the same time, for some reason)

Is it the 'magic whistle' that Biggy keeps going on about????

[biggytitbo]

Yes, but there were no ladies so he didn't get to see any of them bare.

[Pepotamo1985]

I find your analysis a bit ridiculous, you keep making up supposed contentions that only exist in your head. You sound exactly like a bad spectator witnessing a magic trick and trying to work it out.

And you sound exactly like someone who's watched one episode of Penn & Teller and stands at the back of a magic show shouting "I know how that was done" after each trick, and when people start asking you how following the show, you pop to the shitter.

Sorry, but in t'other thread you kept authoritatively stating quite bewildering stuff ("the film is clearly made of cheese") and haven't yet offered any response to people doubting or questioning this state of affairs.

[Steven]

And you sound exactly like someone who's watched one episode of Penn & Teller and stands at the back of a magic show shouting "I know how that was done" after each trick, and when people start asking you how following the show, you pop to the shitter.

Sorry, but in t'other thread you kept authoritatively stating quite bewildering stuff ("the film is clearly made of cheese") and haven't yet offered any response to people doubting or questioning this state of affairs.

I did in the other thread, I said I'd PM you about that when I could, I haven't the time to go collecting references for you. I thought I was being rather polite! It really shouldn't be my job to go researching things for you, you should be doing that for yourself.

Titbo has just been making up conditions that don't exist, they couldn't do X because of Y, when Y is non-existent! When I show that clearly the films are inconsistent he ignores it. Claiming you'd have to be insane to believe things can be photographically altered, this is rather insulting.

And no, I'm more like the person who would quietly enjoy the magic show and if you asked me how things were done I'd recommend a good beginners book the subject and suggest you get learning. I have a train to catch.

[Gulftastic]

At least Oswald died doing his sex-face.

We'd all like to be able to say that.

[biggytitbo]

You haven't shown the films are inconsistent. They show exactly the same event.

You are also unable to explain how they could have doctored films they didn't have.

Worst of all, you haven't explained why they'd doctor a film ot show a shot from the front when they want us to think all the shots were from the rear.

[daveoblivian]

Why hasn't some go-getter journalist just absolutely bossed this and won a pulitzer?

[dallasman]

I'm not privy to any special facts.

I believe you. But now that young Steven is off to catch his train, here's your chance to put a presentable face on the conspiracy theories. So, how do you think it went down? For simplicity's sake, let's stick with the actual shooting. How many shots, fired from where and by whom (and maybe why, if you have an opinion).

[biggytitbo]

The onus isnt on me to come up with a detailed alternative theory, especially since its 50 years ago and most of the evidence is either gone or horribly tainted.


I think its possible to make a fair stab at the shooting sequence though.


We can be reasonably certain there were 3 shots.


We know the pattern of the shots was bang............bang..bang due to the fact that the vast majority of the people in Dealey Plaza described 3 shots with the last 2 bunched together.


That shooting pattern is also confirmed by photographs such as Willis 5, which corresponds to frame 202 of the Zapruder film. Phil Willis took the photograph by accident after been startled by the first shot.


So shot 1: Approx Frame 190 Hits Kennedy in the back. Many people described the 1st shot as sounding different to the other 2. The bullet is either a duff round or goes through a branch of the tree, loses much of its velocity and starts tumbling, hitting Kennedy in the back back to front, flat end first. It goes in a couple of inches , and a small shard of it exits through Kennedys throat. The bullet later falls out somewhere between Dealey Plaza and the hospital and is lost. This fits with the original autopsy findings that the back wound was shallow and did not pass through Kennedy's body.


5 seconds or so later shot 2 hits Kennedy in the head causing the shower of blood and brain seen in the Zapruder film. The bullet fragments and causes the damage to the chrome trim of the car. Fragments fly off and hit Tague. A larger fragment hits Connally in the wrist, causing the injuries described by Doctor Gregory.


A second or so later Kennedy is now slumped forward, Connally is laying flat in his seat. Shot 3 hits Kennedy to the bottom right of his head, near the EOP. This shears through the side of his head and goes on to hit Connally in the back and then thigh.


The original autopsy doctors were adamant that the wound in Kennedy's head was at the EOP region, whereas later investigations had the wound 6 inches higher in the cowlick area. The best way to reconcile this is that he was shot twice in the back of the head.


I'm not saying that is 100% correct, but it fits evidence we have far better than the official account does (not that there is one official SBT, there are at least 3 different ones).


I think 2 of the shots probably came from the TSBD and 1 came from one of the other buildings to the rear of the motorcade, which were never investigated due to them quickly fixating on the TSBD.

[George Oscar Bluth II]

I want to know why George H.W. Bush was in Dallas that day.

[massive bereavement]

I reckon it was somebody who really hated that Connally bloke and shot the Pres by mistake.

[Thomas]

I reckon it was somebody who really hated that Connally bloke and shot the Pres by mistake.

Nah, they were intending to hit Jackie but closed the wrong eye whilst aiming.

[biggytitbo]

I reckon it was somebody who really hated that Connally bloke and shot the Pres by mistake.

That was actually a genuine theory back then. Oswald had had dealings with Connally before, he was angry wih him that he had received an 'undesirable' discharge[nb]ooh err[/nb] from the marines and wrote him a letter when he was secratry of the navy.

[Mark Steels Stockbroker]

We all know John Peel was responsible. He made Pulp a successful band. He can do anything. Don't fuck with the Peel.

[biggytitbo]

Here he is at the famous midnight press conference.



Probably off out afterwards to bother some underage American girls eh?!

[dallasman]

The onus isnt on me to come up with a detailed alternative theory, especially since its 50 years ago and most of the evidence is either gone or horribly tainted.

Fair enough. Nobody who rejects the official explanation ever offered a plausible alternative scenario anyway, and you've not claimed to be able to do so either, afaik. There must be some reason you believe there was more than one shooter, though. To me, the evidence against Oswald and what we know about him, makes a compelling case for the "lone nut theory" while making his involvement in a far-reaching conspiracy very unlikely. I don't necessarily accept the "tainted evidence" line either, as that more or less presupposes a cover-up, if not outright conspiracy. But is that roughly your starting point? That there was distortion of evidence and testimony, and therefore there must have been something more to it?

I think 2 of the shots probably came from the TSBD and 1 came from one of the other buildings to the rear of the motorcade, which were never investigated due to them quickly fixating on the TSBD.

Any particular building? Any one of the shots seem particularly unlikely to have been fired from the "sniper's nest"? Based on your description of the last two shots, it should be one of those, right? You seem to have paid a lot of attention to the wounds and the bullet trajectories, so I assumed you'd have something more specific on this. Unless you're basing your (tentative) conclusion on the old "LHO couldn't have done the shooting" objection.
Do you think Oswald fired any of the shots, or do you think he really was "just a patsy"?