Missing bullet documentary actually proves JFK conspiracy

Conspiracy? When there are thousands of pages of JFK assassination related documents that are being withheld, and an additional number of documents that have been released which have everything of interest blacked out, how can not think there's not a conspiracy?

When our government holds back documents from the public, it's a clear sign they're trying to cover up something. Just like the many 9/11 security videos that have never been released to the public.

There is something that has nagged at me for years over the lone gunman theory .

Either Oswald acted alone , or he was part of a coup to remove Kennedy , or as Oswald maintained until his own murder , he was innocent and just a "patsy " .

If Oswald acted alone then what was his motive ? History teaches us lone assassins of famous people are usually driven by one thing ,,, a craving for fame , but from the onset he emphatically denied the crime and this doesn't fit the profile .
If his crime was politically motivated , then wouldn't he have spoken up while he held the spotlight ??

We will never know what part , if any , Oswald played in the murder of Kennedy , but you can be sure of this , there was more than one shooter involved on that day in Dallas and I believe the final and fatal shot came from the grassy knoll ....

Regards .

reply to post by Gideon70


Agreed. And I would go along with Oswald being a patsy rather than an actual part of the plot. I think he may have thought he had some kind of role in some kind of operations, but I doubt he thought he was participating in a plot to kill the president.

reply to post by intrptr


I've read a lot about this for many years and I am not sure where the bullets came from and even if the same bullet hit Kennedy and then went on through Connelly. In fact, I rather doubt that. The only thing I know is that more than one doctor upon seeing the throat wound thought it to be a wound of entrance. The exit wound could be in the back lower down if the shooter was higher up and in front. Who knows? I've heard theories about how the back wound could be an exit wound, and at the autopsy the doctors were not allowed to probe the wounds so how can anyone know for sure?

There are so many stories floating around over the years about shooters in so many places it makes your head spin, which is, I'm sure exactly what some people want; to keep us from being able to sort it all out.

reply to post by wtbengineer


I totally agree with everything you wrote .
I also want to add that if the shot to the throat and the fatal head shot came from the same gun , then why the difference in the severity of the wounds ?
If the throat shot was indeed an exit wound , then it paled significantly to the severity of the head wound .
If the throat shot was an entrance wound , there had to be a second shooter .

Regards.

reply to post by TheKeyMaster

There are always breadcrumbs left behind. NO operation is that perfect. If the film taken of that day by Zapruder didn't exist, there would be less speculation on the actual assassination. That was something they didn't count on. A "bread crumb". When Kenndeys head explodes, its only too obvious that a hi velocity projectile did that. The only thing that could have done that. If that is not evident enough for some, they haven't spent enough time at a rifle range blowing up melons and water jugs.

I have.

Then there is the sound of shots, the blood, the body... what else would you need, back in 1963?

The resulting shift in policy of the United States from that day forward is another clue how things were before Kennedy was killed and after (to this day).

To me, all those that want to add more mystery to the real reasons Kennedy was killed (and how) are part of the same crowd that say there was no conspiracy at all, just a lone nut . Go back to sleep. Oh, okay. The powers that be ... still be. They would of course agree.

Anything to keep from looking at the truth.

reply to post by intrptr


Excellent post .
I have studied the shooting for years and I have no doubt that a political coup took place before our very eyes , that day.
Kennedy had made so many enemies within his own government and various agencies , that a number of theories could hold water and they would all still point to a coup .

reply to post by wtbengineer

There are so many stories floating around over the years about shooters in so many places it makes your head spin, which is, I'm sure exactly what some people want; to keep us from being able to sort it all out.

No, to keep us focused on how he died instead of why and who might have been behind it. All the wound and ballistics "theories" are the distraction from that.

Same with 911, Sandy Hook. And any other conspiracy theory you care to name. If there are disinfo agents (why wouldn't there be) then that is what keeps us from looking up at the truth. They keep pointing our heads back down at all the "evidence". Witness this thread and all the noobs that come with "who knows" and "who can tell" remarks and new mystery theories. I was alive when it happened and been studying it ever since. I have seen the evidence change, witnesses die of mysterious circumstances. I have witnessed the change in the stories and evidence since the internet was born. Now everyone can make some crap up for views or confusions sake.

Or just because they can.

reply to post by Gideon70

I also want to add that if the shot to the throat and the fatal head shot came from the same gun , then why the difference in the severity of the wounds ?
If the throat shot was indeed an exit wound , then it paled significantly to the severity of the head wound .
If the throat shot was an entrance wound , there had to be a second shooter .

That had to do with the bullet design and what it encountered in Kennedys neck as opposed to his head. In the neck shot it passed through mostly flesh. The head shot pierced a fluid filled, bone encased "shell" (skull).

Researcher John Cahill, a veteran sportsman and gun aficionado, writes, "The long, heavy 6.5 [Mannlicher-Carcano] has often been described as a ballistic overachiever, with 'killing power' far greater than one its paper ballistics would indicate, and greater than one would think, given its diminutive size and modest velocity."(18)
Cahill also notes that the type of ammunition used for the assassination was favored by turn-of-the-century elephant hunters.(19) Any bullet capable of penetrating elephant hide can be expected to inflict considerable damage upon a human being without suffering excessive mutilation of its own.

www.jfk-online.com...

The bullet was designed as an "over penetrator". At that time men still marched in formation on the battle field. It was thought that a bullet could punch through several men before slowing, thus killing as many men as possible with one shot. That is another reason the particular ammunition was chosen and why it remained intact after causing so many wounds. The bullet is not made to flatten or explode, it is made to remain intact as it punches through multiple victims. Bone would tend to slow it down and cause it to transfer more energy to the target. But it zips thru flesh like an arrow.

That kind of penetration would not leave ragged exit wounds, except in the case of the head shot. Any hi velocity round tends to "pop" skulls.

reply to post by Gideon70

have studied the shooting for years and I have no doubt that a political coup took place before our very eyes , that day.
Kennedy had made so many enemies within his own government and various agencies , that a number of theories could hold water and they would all still point to a coup .

Totally agree with that. That is why they killed him. To promote war, and exact revenge for his and his brothers actions regarding Cuba, Vietnam , the mob, Hoover, Johnson, the Military industrial complex, big Texas Oil, etc.

Hell they killed him in Dallas. Isn't that proof enough? For all the nay sayers?

Sorry about the off topic drift. This is a bullet thread after all...

reply to post by intrptr


Thank you .
The bullet information has given me fresh insight.
This is probably the reason why the attending surgeon and the chief neuro surgeon at Dallas Memorial , both had the impression that the throat wound was an entrance wound .

Now that leaves me with another question . If the throat wound was a exit wound , then logically ( if Oswald fired the shot ) the entrance would have to have been in the lower head and this is inconsistant with what you have just told me . For your statement to be true and for Oswald to have fired the shot , then there would have been an apparent entrance wound to the back of the head and Kennedy would have naturally slumped forward .
Watching the Zapruder film , there is no apparent head injury at this time and the way Kennedy reacts as both hands go up to his throat would suggest an entrance wound , either that ,or the shot came from anywhere other from the book depository.

Could it be that Kennedy was caught in a triangulated gunfire . One shot to the throat from on top of the underpass ( entry wound to the throat ) , one shot from the grassy knoll ( fatal head shot ) and one shot from around the vicinity of the book depository ( first shot ) ?

Regards

reply to post by Gideon70

More like the back of the neck There are autopsy photos of this. Google neck wound or back wound and you get a plethora. The magic bullet path was straight. When they lined everything up including the jump seat placement, the position of JFK and Connelly, then there is a straight line all the way back to the 6th floor window of the depository building. It has to line up, that is where the bullet came from.

Originally posted by intrptr
reply to post by Gideon70

 

More like the back of the neck There are autopsy photos of this. Google neck wound or back wound and you get a plethora. The magic bullet path was straight. When they lined everything up including the jump seat placement, the position of JFK and Connelly, then there is a straight line all the way back to the 6th floor window of the depository building. It has to line up, that is where the bullet came from.

I disagree . If the throat wound was an exit wound , then Kennedy would have slumped forward as the bullet hit him from behind and this was not the case .
Look how he reacts as the bullet hits the throat . Both hands go instinctively up to the throat with no forward motion of his body . This would suggest an entry wound .

Regards.

reply to post by intrptr


Yep, same here. I was alive then and I've seen all the things you're talking about. I think it was easier to research before the internet was around. I've definitely seen more BS since then.

I have to add that I agree more with Gideon's assessment.

Originally posted by wtbengineer
reply to post by intrptr

 

Yep, same here. I was alive then and I've seen all the things you're talking about. I think it was easier to research before the internet was around. I've definitely seen more BS since then.

And before the internet , exactly what research could you rely on ? You had books and nothing else , so what makes you think it was easier ?
You based everything you knew about this case from what you had read ... What makes you think your information was any more reliable back then ?

What's happened since is we are able to gather facts from a wider area than ever before . There will always be Bull#ters , it goes with the territory , regardless of which generation you belong to ,lol .

reply to post by Gideon70


Because books have citations listing every source from which information was obtained and it is easy to find the material to verify the facts. Youtube videos that are a dime a dozen can say anything.

I can't verify the sources of internet info, I don't have those skills. I'm not a computer person, I'm an EE.

Originally posted by wtbengineer
reply to post by Gideon70

 

Because books have citations listing every source from which information was obtained and it is easy to find the material to verify the facts. Youtube videos that are a dime a dozen can say anything.

No, respectfully , I'm not buying it .
Who mentioned Youtube ?
If you wanna go down that road of youtube bashing , I could give you links to literally thousands of events that have happened in mankinds history that have been documented on Youtube . Are you going to tell me these events are false ?

Lets keep it on topic , shall we ?
One thing you didn't have back then , was access to the Zapruder film . Agreed ????

Respects

Originally posted by texasgirl

Originally posted by Nightaudit

Originally posted by Agit8dChop
reply to post by charlyv

 

wont happen, people who were involved in that day are still alive and a part of big government.

Could you name one or two? Just for giggles?

Well, there was a document that came out that George Bush was there in Dallas at the time. George Bush Sr. claims it wasn't him, even though he was CIA back then. I can't prove he was involved but it's very suspicious.

edit on 1-4-2013 by texasgirl because: (no reason given)

Yea, you are all correct in your own way. I know it goes deep. Anyone with any kind of common sense knows that things did not go down the way the WC states it did, that work as almost laughable. My problem is with integrity, which is blatantly missing in our present society. The theory that really intrigues me today is the storm drain possibility. It seems to have some real legs, but many people dismiss it as just too difficult. Jim Marrs did some great research on it and showed that it was possible. The work by Gill Jesus is remarkable as well. A great site, if you want to visit it, is :atruthsoldier.wordpress.com...

I find the whole affair as interesting as it is sad.

reply to post by Gideon70

I disagree . If the throat wound was an exit wound , then Kennedy would have slumped forward as the bullet hit him from behind and this was not the case .
Look how he reacts as the bullet hits the throat . Both hands go instinctively up to the throat with no forward motion of his body . This would suggest an entry wound .

I'm done with this line of reason. Your conclusion is one prime example of whatever passes as scientific approach these days. Based on a few frames of how things "look" to your eye. Without actually considering all other evidence.

"suggest an entry wound"... if you knew how ignorant that sounds, forensically speaking. Here I'll make up a new one, too.

I can't see a bullet in the film so he wasn't shot.

reply to post by Gideon70

And before the internet , exactly what research could you rely on ? You had books and nothing else , so what makes you think it was easier ?

Uhhh, the Zapruder film? Which has been altered over the years. You see that today by the way as the jump in the film that occurs when the limo is behind the sign...

Like I said... done here. No further responses will be answered.