JFK Assassination...Your Honest Thoughts

[Hostile]

He's using a Carcano. You're not.......yet.

I'm not really interested in a Carcano, so unless I find one for a steal, I am not buying it.

You can clearly see though what I have been saying. All I have to do is hit a kill shot on the 3rd in under 8.3 seconds. I can do that easily.

 

[Hostile]

Well you guys sure put up some videos today! I got a lot more yardwork done than y'all did though. :

I have a landscaper.

The videos are good and Beyond the Magic Bullet is a very convincing show, no doubt. I have a couple comments on all of the video clips. Take them for what they're worth.

The eye witness vids are very convincing, but I was told earlier that we shouldn't present anything from someone who's getting paid for their statements. I guess the thinking is that some people will say anything for a buck. I can understand that theory. My other issues with those videos are as follows:

I have no idea who got paid and who didn't. The only one I ever knew was paid was Zapruder for his film.

James Altgens clearly states that officers ran up the grassy knoll to apprehend the shooter. As much as I want to believe average Joe's and what their ears tell them, I lean towards the ears of people who get shot at more often than average Joe's.......cops.

I want to comment on this. I have said all along that there could have been a conspiracy. Why else was Oswald silenced? Could there have been someone with a gun up there? Yes.

But he either did not fire or he missed. Oswald did not. Altgens' eye witness testimony makes that clear.

Howard Brennan's interview is very convincing, but I just can't, for the life of me, figure out why he was watching the shooter the entire time. Call me crazy, but isn't that like watching the shooter of a jumpshot in a basketball game, even after he's released the ball? Don't you usually follow the shot to see if he makes it? Also, I don't know about you, but if I'm standing as close as he was to the guy who's shooting at our President, I'm not standing around watching all 3. I'm out of there, taking cover. Who knows though...maybe he actually did see history. Amazing if he did.

What could he have done form 6 stories below?

As for the Lattimer video, I have nothing more to add than what's already been said. No one has ever said you can't operate the bolt action on that gun in 8.3 seconds. If you don't believe me, re-read this entire thread.

Then I confess, I don't know why people can't accept Oswald as shooter.

Ok, back to Beyond the Magic Bullet. We've already gone through some issues I had with segments of this program, so I'm not going to repeat myself. However, you introduced more clips from the show, so here's my problem with them:

I am disappointed by the horrible angle that they use for the grassy knoll shot. However, now I understand why some of you keep repeating that Jackie would've been hit. I agree completely, at that angle, she would've been hit. They're using the spot where they think the Badgeman shows up on the Muchmore film. I've never supported that photo enhancement. I even said that earlier in this thread when someone was commenting on enhanced videos and photos.

Glad that rings true with you now.

This goes back to my earlier complaint about this grassy knoll shot. They pay no respect to the entry/exit wounds on the skull. They just say "hit it somewhere above the eye." What should've been done, was they should've drawn a straight line from the exit/entry rooms to the grassy knoll....that's where the grassy knoll shooter was, if he exists. This is obvious. It's not like we don't know where it went in and out at. I've been to the knoll. They were standing at a horrible angle.

The second problem I have with it is that on their 6th floor shot the head never snaps back and to the left. They go through all this trouble to replicate a human body, with a stiff yet flexible neck, and it never even makes a slight motion back and to the left. Interesting.

Forgive how morbid I am going to get. The snap of the head back and left is not a 100% thing. It did for President Kennedy. The film does not lie. Would it for Connally? Jackie? Mrs. Connally? Greer, the driver? Agent Kellerman? We will never know.

When life leaves a living thing they convulse. If you don't believe this go to a slaughterhouse and watch these huge beefs when they fire a shot into the brain. Every one of them reacts differently. The compelling thing is not Kennedy's reaction it is the blood splatter.

And finally, may I draw your attention to 8:30 in to the 2nd clip....where they attempt to show how similar their blood splatter pattern is to the Zapruder film's splatter. Does anyone else think it's completely different? or am I just crazy? I mean their's dumps forward and the actual splatter from the Zapruder film goes almost straight up, some forward, and some back. C'mon.

No simulation can equal a real body, but yes. I think it was hokie.

 

[Rogah]

You can't go by a still picture.

On the Zapruder film when he gets shot he violently jerks back and then recoils forward and to the left towards Jackie.

JFK's head does indeed violently jerk backwards when he was shot in the head. Thing is, except in the movies, violently jerking back in such a manner demonstrates the shot came from behind him.

The bullet enter the skull from behind in a very nice and clean fashion. Then as it travels through (and shatters) bone and tissue, it explode out the front violently. The path of damage is almost like a cone, where the point of the cone is the entry would, and the base of the cone is the front of JFK's face.

So when all that matter explodes out of the front of a guy's head, it jerks the head in the opposite direction, i.e. his head jerks backwards.

 

[Hostile]

I have never seen the Zapruder film and not sure I want to but the footage shown in the various video shows IMO and as many of you have said Jackie would have been hit by a shot from the knoll. I'm convinced all the shots came from from Ozwald. I have had my doubts in the past but not anymore.

I bet you have seen it and just didn't know that was the name of it.

 

[Rogah]

The shot hit him Right Temple area at a obviously less that 90% angle...plus his head was slightly turned to the left at that point and proceeded to blow the back of his head out...Jackie climbs out on the Limo Trunk in back of him to get part of his skull

Honest question:

Are ya being serious here?

 

[CowboyDan]

Honest question:

Are ya being serious here?

He is. It's in the Warren Report. Between Jackie's testimony, and Gov. Connally's wife's testimony of what Jackie said to her while they were in the hospital, and what Agent Hill testified to as well. Jackie doesn't remember getting out of the car, but she does clearly explain seeing a peice of his skull fly off his head and go backwards. In the hospital she told Gov. Connally's wife that she had his brains in her hand. Agent Hill said he didn't know exactly what she was reaching for, but said that there was a lot of blood and matter all over the trunk. If you watch the film again, you'll notice that she appears to be reaching for something, not actually climbing out of the car.

 

[Rogah]

OK there's like 27 pages in this thread (with lots and lots of videos). I apologize if this has already been posted but I didn't see it anywhere and I think it is pretty cool.

This is a "steady cam" presentation of the Zapruder film. Pretty cool to see what the editors did to steady the picture.

[youtube]ozx4_4DZp38[/youtube]

 

[Rogah]

He is. It's in the Warren Report. Between Jackie's testimony, and Gov. Connally's wife's testimony of what Jackie said to her while they were in the hospital, and what Agent Hill testified to as well. Jackie doesn't remember getting out of the car, but she does clearly explain seeing a peice of his skull fly off his head and go backwards.

Ah. So this line of reasoning is based on a 3rd hand account of what a woman who was completely and undeniably in a state of absolute shock (and said she has no memory of the event) may have said in the immediate aftermath of having her husband's face blown off about 2 feet away.

Yeah, that's solid!

If you watch the film again, you'll notice that she appears to be reaching for something, not actually climbing out of the car.

Actually, I notice no such thing. I see a panicked women who didn't have the first clue what was going on around her trying to get away.

 

[CowboyDan]

Ah. So this line of reasoning is based on a 3rd hand account of what a woman who was completely and undeniably in a state of absolute shock (and said she has no memory of the event) may have said in the immediate aftermath of having her husband's face blown off about 2 feet away.

Yeah, that's solid!
Actually, I notice no such thing. I see a panicked women who didn't have the first clue what was going on around her trying to get away.

Take it for what it's worth.
So when you rewatch it again, do you think she's climbing out or reaching for something? Notice how her legs never leave the seat.

 

[Rogah]

Take it for what it's worth.
So when you rewatch it again, do you think she's climbing out or reaching for something? Notice how her legs never leave the seat.

What part of my prior post did you not understand?

 

[CowboyDan]

What part of my prior post did you not understand?

I guess I was asking you to rewatch it and pay attention to her legs, but you certainly don't have to if you don't want to.... jeez.

You could be right. I'm just going by what I see and by what she and others have said, and by my opinion that there was no way she was leaving Jack in that car alone. Maybe it's just the romantic in me.

 

[Hostile]

I don't think Jackie was trying to get part of his skull. I think she was terrified and trying to get away. I know I would in her place.

She actually regretted that she washed her face and hands of Jack's blood and brains. Can you imagine the impact of the photos of her dress with it still on her face and hands. It was all over her legs. She was so magnificent. I have such respect for her.

 

[Rogah]

I guess I was asking you to rewatch it and pay attention to her legs, but you certainly don't have to if you don't want to.... jeez.

You could be right. I'm just going by what I see and by what she and others have said, and by my opinion that there was no way she was leaving Jack in that car alone. Maybe it's just the romantic in me.

I think it's silly to try and ascribe any rational behavior to someone in the situation she was in. Like she (or anyone) would have the presence of mind to say "oh, my husband's face just got blown off but I'm going to hold him close because I love him so."

I mean come on. What happened to her is something I would not wish on my worst enemy, but I am not going to try and sit here and trying to find reasons for her actions as though she were in a normal, everyday setting. She was panicked and delirious, and behaved in the manner of a panicked, delirious individual.

 

[CowboyDan]

I think it's silly to try and ascribe any rational behavior to someone in the situation she was in. Like she (or anyone) would have the presence of mind to say "oh, my husband's face just got blown off but I'm going to hold him close because I love him so."

I mean come on. What happened to her is something I would not wish on my worst enemy, but I am not going to try and sit here and trying to find reasons for her actions as though she were in a normal, everyday setting. She was panicked and delirious, and behaved in the manner of a panicked, delirious individual.

What would you say is more rational behavior in that situation:

getting the hell outta there?

or

reaching across the trunk for a peice of his skull....trying to put him back together? She testified that she was holding his skull together on the way to Parkland.

 

[Yeagermeister]

I bet you have seen it and just didn't know that was the name of it.

I should clarify. I have never seen the whole film. I have seen parts of it.

 

[Hostile]

I should clarify. I have never seen the whole film. I have seen parts of it.

It is probably the whole film. It is only a few seconds long.

 

[Rogah]

What would you say is more rational behavior in that situation:

I am not going to analyze "what is more rational" because, as I mentioned before, such was not the time to assume she was reaction rationally.

The better question is what do you think the typical, instinctive, human reaction is? Getting the hell out of there, or turning around and looking for gray matter on the back of the trunk of a limo (that she wouldn't even have any real reason to believe was there in the first place)?

reaching across the trunk for a peice of his skull....trying to put him back together? She testified that she was holding his skull together on the way to Parkland.

I don't see a comment that she was holding him close on the way to the hospital equate to "I tried to grab his brains from the trunk of the limo behind me".

 

[CowboyDan]

I am not going to analyze "what is more rational" because, as I mentioned before, such was not the time to assume she was reaction rationally.

The better question is what do you think the typical, instinctive, human reaction is? Getting the hell out of there, or turning around and looking for gray matter on the back of the trunk of a limo (that she wouldn't even have any real reason to believe was there in the first place)?
I don't see a comment that she was holding him close on the way to the hospital equate to "I tried to grab his brains from the trunk of the limo behind me".

I agree that she wasn't acting rationally. That's my point.

Her testimony starts here: http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh5/html/WC_Vol5_0094b.htm

And here's a link to everyone's testimony links: http://www.history-matters.com/archive/contents/wc/contents_wh5.htm

 

[Rogah]

I agree that she wasn't acting rationally. That's my point.

Her testimony starts here: http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh5/html/WC_Vol5_0094b.htm

And here's a link to everyone's testimony links: http://www.history-matters.com/archive/contents/wc/contents_wh5.htm

My friend, if you are going to reference testimony to support your point, you have to be a bit more specific than just providing a link to the entire testimony. I am not going to read 600 pages of info in order to try and find something which you say is in there and I'm saying isn't.

You're saying she testified to this and that but I just don't see anything supporting your view. Of course, I admit, I only skimmed a couple paragraphs because it's your responsibility to support your own argument, not mine.

 

[CowboyDan]

My friend, if you are going to reference testimony to support your point, you have to be a bit more specific than just providing a link to the entire testimony. I am not going to read 600 pages of info in order to try and find something which you say is in there and I'm saying isn't.

You're saying she testified to this and that but I just don't see anything supporting your view. Of course, I admit, I only skimmed a couple paragraphs because it's your responsibility to support your own argument, not mine.

That's why I paraphrased them for you earlier. You don't belive me? I don't really care. I did the research.