"Who Shot JFK?" - Where is the mystery or conspiracy?

And since I'm participating in the thread, I'll throw this out there to address the big common misconceptions.

The HSCA did indeed state that there was likely a conspiracy. THat's a black and white fact. But let's dig a little deeper. Context, people. The reason they stated that was primarily based on dictabelt recordings on which there were several inaudible spikes. One of the motorcycle officers' mics was stuck open, thereby making a recording of the events that day onto a Dallas Police dictabelt (an early tape recorder). These spikes were interpreted to be gunshots. There were 4 of them.

The problem with this evidence is that the spikes were later reliably determined to be AFTER (by a full minute) the actual shooting. There is simply no audio evidence for a 4th shot. The HSCA concluded that there probably was a 4th shot, though it missed. They never said they had any more evidence for a 4th shot than the dictabelt recordings. With the recordings proven to be AFTER the murder, the evidence for a 4th shot completely disappears. Sorry guys, it isnt exciting, but it's the truth.

As far as the "but trained marksmen cant even do it!" claim, this is patently false. First of all, 6 seconds is a myth. The Zapruder film cuts off for several seconds between the beginning of the motorcade and the first view of Kennedy. The first shot could have easily been taken during that period that wasnt filmed. WE dotn KNOW when the first shot was taken. All we do know for sure is the time between the neck shot (the "magic" bullet) and the headshot, and that isnt impossible. In fact, plenty of people have done it WITH a Carcano 6.5 rifle.

Oswald was a Marine. The Marines teach you how to use a rifle. It's really, really that simple.

reply to post by NoRulesAllowed


Honesty??? You dont see the big deal here?

I will tell you plain and simple... no need to dig any further than the famous Zapruder film.

Not all shots were fired from the same gun. the shot that blew Kennedy's head wide open was a different type of bullet than the bullets that Oswald was using. This is not even debatable.

So therefore it is called a conspiracy.

combatmaster
reply to post by NoRulesAllowed

 

Honesty??? You dont see the big deal here?

I will tell you plain and simple... no need to dig any further than the famous Zapruder film.

Not all shots were fired from the same gun. the shot that blew Kennedy's head wide open was a different type of bullet than the bullets that Oswald was using. This is not even debatable.

So therefore it is called a conspiracy.

Please prove this. If it isnt debatable, please provide evidence of your claim.

reply to post by combatmaster


The short video films "Two Men In Dallas" confirm that one. More than one rifle found in the BD, a Mauser and another, Spanish or Italian manufactured rifle.

Cmessier

Mufcutcakeyumyum
reply to post by Cmessier

 

Bullet wounds do not cause a large object like a human body to violently change positions. To suggest that the rearward motion JFK makes after being struck in the head is from a bullet wound is to discount the laws of motion.

I'm not sure that is strictly true, well, not according to the Rockefeller Commission analysis:

en.wikipedia.org...

It all sounds very complicated if you read it, but essentially says the shot caused a nervous reaction stiffening and causing a "seizure" like reaction in his body.

Which is fine, because if this is what caused the violent backwards motion (and its one of the theories I've read several times) it means that the bullet impact itself did NOT. And that's all I'm driving at. The actual momentum/kinetic energy transfer from a projectile to the head of the President would NOT cause a violent backwards motion of the entire upper body. The nervous system reaction, the ejection of materials from the skull, etc are all of course debateable, I do not hold fast to any one explanation. What I do hold fast to is that a bullet strike from the front right would not cause the backwards left motion seen in the film.

So, I dont disagree with you. Just want to be clear.

The irony:

In a parallel reality we would NOT have a Zapruder film. The assassination happened, no one would debate head movements after the shot, no-one would even KNOW about the details (as seen in the Z film). Would we then STILL have a conspiracy?

Or asked in different words: How much sense makes it if "someone" would produce (as in "fake") the Z film...which then would contain obvious not-explainable inconsistencies? The film either IS real or it is NOT. If it's "faked" then I would not expect any implausible things in it.

Also..on the background of an ASSUMED conspiracy....it doesn't make sense "they" would release the Z film which would reveal obvious evidence of that something was "not right"...eg. with the head moving "in the wrong direction". If this was the case..why then release the film in the first place? If the conspiracy is so great they would likely have confiscated the film and no-one would ever have seen it.

Mufcutcakeyumyum
reply to post by combatmaster

 

The short video films "Two Men In Dallas" confirm that one. More than one rifle found in the BD, a Mauser and another, Spanish or Italian manufactured rifle.

The Carcano looks a lot like a Mauser. One or more officers initially identified it incorrectly as a Mauser, hence the myth about a Mauser being found in the Depository.

Have you watched big news stories unfold? Its very common for facts to be misreported during the early moments of a breaking story.

combatmaster
reply to post by NoRulesAllowed

 

Honesty??? You dont see the big deal here?

I will tell you plain and simple... no need to dig any further than the famous Zapruder film.

Not all shots were fired from the same gun. the shot that blew Kennedy's head wide open was a different type of bullet than the bullets that Oswald was using. This is not even debatable.

So therefore it is called a conspiracy.

Yes, proof would be nice. Of course it would also mean that the autopsy with the relatelively small entrance hole in the back of the head is fake. As is my very limited understanding, what's seen on the Z film and what is known in general goes very well with a "normal" rifle. Yes reality is harsh, but quarter of a skull CAN shatter and explode away like that...and it doesn't need a "secret" weapon and also no bigger firearm. This is what a head-shot can do.

reply to post by Cmessier


Good point, well made.
Multiply this by all of the witness testimony and other things cited as evidence and then progress it along ten, twenty, fifty years and you get to where we are today.
What single piece of evidence we in 2013 can see today is actually primary evidence? and hence irrefutable?

Cmessier
Have you watched big news stories unfold? Its very common for facts to be misreported during the early moments of a breaking story.

It's very common for facts IN GENERAL to be misreported - "facts" which then "make" our reality. (Or what we perceive as it). But this is a different topic. Just wanted to mention it because I thought making a thread about this very subject yesterday....HOW we "think" that we "know" things while in reality we really don't.

Cmessier

Mufcutcakeyumyum
reply to post by combatmaster

 

The short video films "Two Men In Dallas" confirm that one. More than one rifle found in the BD, a Mauser and another, Spanish or Italian manufactured rifle.

The Carcano looks a lot like a Mauser. One or more officers initially identified it incorrectly as a Mauser, hence the myth about a Mauser being found in the Depository.

Have you watched big news stories unfold? Its very common for facts to be misreported during the early moments of a breaking story.

And as long as people will insist that two rifles were found when that was simply not the case, the conspiracy lives on. There was only the one rifle, which was misidentified. A perfect example of how you can take a fact and twist it into something entirely different to support a false premise. One gun, misidentified turns into two guns.

If anyone wants to discuss other elements involved, we can do that all day. Who knows? Maybe he was acting for someone else. But there is a mountain of evidence to support the fact that Oswalt shot Kennedy from the sixth floor of the depository.

NoRulesAllowed

Cmessier
Have you watched big news stories unfold? Its very common for facts to be misreported during the early moments of a breaking story.

It's very common for facts IN GENERAL to be misreported - "facts" which then "make" our reality. (Or what we perceive as it). But this is a different topic. Just wanted to mention it because I thought making a thread about this very subject yesterday....HOW we "think" that we "know" things while in reality we really don't.

In November of 1963, it WASNT "different". It was a news story, the most important news story in the U.S.A. and everyone was in a rush to get information.

I WANT to find real evidence of a conspiracy, that someone else was involved, someone else shot, that a loser like Oswald couldnt have possibly killed the President of the U.S.A. But after many, many, many, many hours of research I cant find one bit of HARD evidence. I always get into these discussions because I'm hoping someone will change my mind.

reply to post by Aleister

Ah, you don't take into account that during the first shot Oswald's hands and body must have been shaking, his body had to be reacting to the enormity of what he was doing and much of his nervous system probably rebelled against it (often our nervous systems are smarter than "we" are). So the first shot goes wide, OK, Oswald must have instantly analyzed, calm down just a little, shoot between heartbeats, and aimed and shot twice more. But like I said, he had a godawful escape plan, which is one point for the "other than Oswald" posters. He was a very stupid man in many ways. Curtain rods? Lee, get serious.

As an experienced sniper let me assure you that the first shot is the best. With training and experience, a sniper will wipe out all thoughts from his mind and see only his target. If he needs a second, or third, shot he knows he is in trouble and will sometimes "rush" those shots.
As to "thinking to calm down", you really don't have time for this to happen. You act and react according to training protocals. There is no "calm down time". If you take time to think your target is gone, as well as you element of surprise, which is your primary defense.

It was johnson.

No evidence of a conspiracy ? And they say absence isn't evidence.

Some one had to give the order to pull the agents off the rear bumper
to provide line of sight from the depository. And to keep them from
catching a stray bullet.

No excuses, nothing to explain. 100% CONSPIRACY !

We know exactly who gave the order.



John Fitzgerald Kennedy.




There's nothing mysterious about it. He wanted lax security because he wanted people to be able to see him. Watch the footage of him when he arrived at Love Field, breaking protocol and freaking the Secret Service right out by WALKING UP TO THE LINE AND SHAKING HANDS. He was in Texas to be visible. He wanted the top off. He wanted visibility. He wanted space around him from the Secret Service. There was no stand down order or any instruction to specifically leave him vulnerable except from the President himself.

What you have to understand is that it wasnt considered as big of a deal back then as it is now. Obviously, Obama would NEVER consider riding in a convertible. NEVER consider being left vulnerable to sniper fire, bombs, chemical weapons or anything else. But we're talking about 1963.

Secret Service has come out and said that Kennedy wasnt terribly difficult to work for, and that he let them do their jobs. But he also disobeyed them frequently and Love Field is a great example. Mrs. Kennedy taking those flowers? Craziness today. Somewhat dangerous back then, but she got away with it. The Secret Service wouldnt have wanted her to do it, but they werent of the same mindset then as they are now.

If the rain had continued that day, the top wouldve stayed on, and Kennedy wouldve been President till 1968. But it was a beautiful day when they left the field, and as always they decided to take the top off. This wasnt unusual. There wasnt much difference in security that day in Dallas as on any other day. By today's standards it would be pure insanity for the President's motorcase to be that vulnerable, but in 1963...well, hindsight is 20/20.

reply to post by Cmessier


And you believe that excuse, tripe, Bs ? The CIA doesn't even give POTUS any
say where his personal safety is concerned.

"Ummmm... The President told us to stay away because" I don't think so.

randyvs
reply to post by Cmessier

 

And you believe that excuse, tripe, Bs ? The CIA doesn't even give POTUS any
say where his personal safety is concerned.

"Ummmm... The President told us to stay away because" I don't think so.

Again, you're considering it in terms of what we know today in 2013. Back then, things werent as uptight. It didnt take a fight from Kennedy to get them to give him space. Look at photos from other motorcades in other cities from '63....nothing is different. Top down, lots of space, vulnerable to sniper fire. The idea was visibility and the motorcades were set up to achieve that.

Let me ask you this....if it were a conspiracy, do you really believe that ALL of those people would have kept quiet?

TWA Flight 800 was shot down, THAT conspiracy if legitimate to me. Look what's happening with that one. People are coming out of the woodwork to blow the whistle, including some of the investigators. FOr the Secret Service to stand down....men who were chosen for loyalty, bravery, and dedication to protect the office of the President of the United States, even if it actually happened, the conspiracy would have to be too large for everyone involved to keep quiet.

reply to post by Cmessier

Let me ask you this....if it were a conspiracy, do you really believe that ALL of those people would have kept quiet?

I think it's obvious that I don't have to believe that because it simply isn't the case.
But do I believe that an untold number could and have kept there mouth shut ?
Again it is obvious. Who ever was truly behind this coupe de tat just whacked the POTUS.
Ya I think that would shut up all of them.

And you you see the world thru rose colored glasses