Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

The Murder, The Patsy, The Conspiracy

page: 7
148
<< 4  5  6   >>

log in

join

posted on Nov, 22 2010 @ 01:32 PM
link   
reply to post by Rising Against
 
if the shot had come from the texas book depository (behind the president's car) wouldn't the blowback have sent his brain and skull matter forward instead of backwards toward the trunk?




posted on Nov, 22 2010 @ 01:34 PM
link   
reply to post by abe froman
 


Not neccesarily. Tests have shown (whether the tests are to be believed or not is another matter) that brain fragments could very well have travelled backwards as well as forwards. In fact, they was rather similar to what actually occured if memory serves right.

I'll try and find a quick link to a youtube video (one showing no gore, just tests) which shows this.


I believe this is the video (although I haven't watched it all at this moment in time but I believe it to be the one I was referring to.)



Please do watch the entire video if possible.
edit on 22-11-2010 by Rising Against because: (no reason given)
edit on 22-11-2010 by Rising Against because: Found the correct video..



posted on Nov, 22 2010 @ 01:39 PM
link   
reply to post by Rising Against
 
so there should still have been matter sent forward, anyone ever seen any evidence of that? and did anyone see the taped death bed confession on conspiracy with jesse ventura last week?



posted on Nov, 22 2010 @ 01:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by abe froman
reply to post by Rising Against
 
so there should still have been matter sent forward, anyone ever seen any evidence of that?


Yes. Many people all around the area claimed to have seen brain matter hitting behind and in front of the car. Basically, brain matter went in all directions.


Btw, if you watch the zapruder film very closely you can see brain matter fly in all directions also.
edit on 22-11-2010 by Rising Against because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 22 2010 @ 01:52 PM
link   
reply to post by Rising Against
 
the majority of released matter from a rifle shot will follow the trajectory of the projectile, pretty simple physics, espescially when you consider exit wounds are almost always much larger than entry wounds,i can not in anyway believe the fatal shot came from the rear right.



posted on Nov, 22 2010 @ 02:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by abe froman
reply to post by Rising Against
 
the majority of released matter from a rifle shot will follow the trajectory of the projectile, pretty simple physics, espescially when you consider exit wounds are almost always much larger than entry wounds,i can not in anyway believe the fatal shot came from the rear right.



Well it's not hard to understand why it's a theory. I mean, people did see a figure in that exact direction (on the grassy knoll). People (as well as credible witnesses such as police officers) also saw smoke after the shots were fired much like the exact type of smoke one would see from the gun which the self confessed grassy knoll shooter (James E. File) claims he used and Kennedy seemingly had a gaping hole to the right side of his head (not to forget he fell back to the left side) and as you just mentioned, the shot supposedly came from the right side.

People were even seen running up the grassy knoll area not very long after the shots were fired also suggesting a shot from this direction. The image below verifies this.



So, It's a very plausible theory indeed and a theory (the fact there was a grassy knoll shooter) I very much so believe in.

Also, in regards to the weapon Files claims he used, maybe this is may be interesting to you.



Is the James Files story true? The weapon in question, a combination pistol-rifle would have been absolutely perfect for the short dimensions of Dealey Plaza. Especially concealment after the Assassination. Many witnesses thought a pistol had been fired/An Explosion had occurred. The location from which Files allegedly fired has been verified by Donald Thomas, the HSCA, and a peer reviewed British Science publication. Clearly there is a figure there in that precise spot in the Moorman Photo just to our right of a large tree the person is crouched with a possible barrel resting between the picket fence line....Jeff

It's possible that James Files story is "close" to the truth. The ammo available for the old 221 fireball was rifle ammo........The barrel of the Fireball pistol was too short to allow the slow burning rifle powder to burn completely. Consequently the unburned powder ignited when it hit the air at the muzzle....creating a hell of a boom and a fireball.... Recall that nearly all of the witnesses said they thought the loud "boom" was a railroad torpedo, a motorcycle backfire, or a cannon they had heard at football games.

Some folks say there is a fireball visible in some photos and several witnesses said they saw smoke on the G.K,

The wound on JFK's head is typical of the damage a Fireball pistol would inflict on a human head....

All of this tends to support James Files story that a Fireball pistol was one of the weapons used.
(Source)
edit on 22-11-2010 by Rising Against because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 1 2010 @ 07:54 PM
link   
Any true investigation will lead to actual answers. TPTB can't have that so they give ya their useless spin.



posted on Dec, 2 2010 @ 03:30 AM
link   
reply to post by Beach Bum
 


How do you mean exactly?

Are you referring to the HSCA out of curiosity because if you are, you should know, they confirmed JFK's death was the result of a conspiracy.



posted on Dec, 3 2010 @ 02:04 PM
link   
Absolutely, an awesome piece of work. I'm keeping this as a reference for sure.
If I'm not mistaken the official files will be declassified and available through access to information in the year 2023......I'll make sure that I request an official copy!



posted on Jan, 6 2011 @ 07:22 PM
link   
Just wanted to congratulate the OP on a brilliant thread.
The JFK conspiracy theory drives me crazy. I have flip-flopped for years and still am not certain one way or another. I do think the most pertinent question is the discrepency between the doctors and autopsy dudes testimony about the wounds and the autopsy photos. I know eye witness testimony is unreliable, but for all the doctors to describe a different wound to the one shown in the photos is strange (and if i put my kneck out, a sign of a conspiracy theory).

Cheers



posted on Jan, 27 2011 @ 02:06 PM
link   
reply to post by doubleplusungood
 


Thanks, and sorry for the slow reply, I didn't even see it till now when I decided to check back.


But, I just wanted to come in and show you a really interesting couple of links I found on this, I think you could really benefit from reading at least some of them.


JFK's Head Wounds - An Index

edit on 27-1-2011 by Rising Against because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 9 2011 @ 01:09 PM
link   
reply to post by Rising Against
 


Thanks for this info. And apologies from me for the late reply. I have only just figured out how to see peoples replies to my posts..... (now to find out why ATS insists my time zone is Baghdad)

On the wounds, I am also interested in the Zapruder film which clearly shows a massive flap on the side of his head after he has been shot. That fits in with the official account. I have read/seen some interesting stuff on the veracity of the Zapruder film. Specifically, the speed at which it runs (too slow), the speed at which the blood spray disappears (too quick) and the discrepency between eye witness reports and what it shows about the limousine stopping. However, getting your info from videos is entirely unreliable, think I need to go book shopping again....

Anyway I am off to read through those links you have given.
Cheers!
edit on 9-2-2011 by doubleplusungood because: added the word off



posted on Feb, 23 2011 @ 03:13 PM
link   
reply to post by doubleplusungood
 




Anyway I am off to read through those links you have given.
Cheers!


Oh, cool, hope you find them interesting.



posted on Mar, 16 2011 @ 01:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by zatara
I would like to read what Jim Marrs think of it....Again, good stuff....thanks.


So would I. I'd love to have a chance to sit down and discuss the JFK assassination with him as well, It would be interesting for sure.



posted on May, 23 2011 @ 06:46 PM
link   
Hello again!

So I have been thinking and getting confused by the backyard photos.
First of all, Marina has admitted to taking them hasn't she? So surely that should verify that they are genuine, but people don't believe that. I have to admit I find them a bit dubious.

Obviously there are quite a few (or perceived) anomaIies in these photos, but the most glaring one to me is the issue with Oswald's fingers when he is holding the paper (I will leave the strange angle he is standing at and the line across the chin for a later date).

What caused his fingers to appear to be cut off at the tips? www.oswaldsghost.com...

Could it be that his fingers are hidden by the paper he is holding?
Or that the angle he is holding the paper has made his fingers appear deformed (I think this could be likely).
Or he may have had slightly malformed fingers, I don't think I have ever read that he had, but he could have.

I don't believe these suggestions but they are possibilities. Also, seen as his wife corroborated these photos, these would seem to be of the more resonable explanations.

But part of me thinks, as has been stated by other researchers, is that it is an effect of editing or creating those photos.

However, if this is the case, why did Marina say they were genuine? Fear? Money?
This really confuses me. I would tend to believe Maria but those fingers bug me.

I have also seen a Jack White presentation where he stated that the backgrounds were the same picture.

He says when the backgrounds of a couple of the backyard photos are isolated and transferred to a see through medium like acetate, you can angle one to the other and they will line up exactly, therefore proving the photo was fake.

I have not seen this demonstrated anywhere else and combined with the relative simplicity of the experiment would suggest that this effect is not real. What do you think?


Cheers
edit on 23-5-2011 by doubleplusungood because: (no reason given)





new topics

top topics



 
148
<< 4  5  6   >>

log in

join