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

randyvs
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

I dont see anything through rose colored glasses. I merely cannot find evidence of a conspiracy. Please provide me some, because honestly, as I've said, I'd love to think that a loser like Oswald couldnt have killed the President.

This is enough to prove to me that there is something strange going on with the whole situation. And OP, bringing up all of the harebrained theories doesn't give any credibility to the official story, and actually does the opposite for your argument.

www.mtgriffith.com...

But soon after the WC released its report, critics raised questions about the Commission's version of the shooting. They noted the evidence indicated Oswald was a rather poor shot. They cited the fact that none of the experienced, expert shooters who took part in the government's assassination reenactments of the shooting was actually able to duplicate Oswald's alleged performance. They pointed out that Oswald had little target practice in the four years leading up to the assassination, and that he apparently had no target practice whatsoever in the 40 days preceding the shooting.

The extreme unlikelihood of the 2 hits/3 shots/6 seconds scenario was highlighted in the 1967 CBS rifle test. Eleven highly skilled marksmen participated in a fairly (though not totally) realistic simulation of the conditions under which Oswald would have had to fire. Not one of the eleven expert shooters managed to score two hits on his first attempt—and Oswald would have had only one attempt. In fact, of the eleven CBS shooters, seven failed to score two hits on any of their attempts.

reply to post by Cmessier




This right here. I know it's you tube.
But these are the facts as I know them.

Cmessier

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.

Dont try to be clever..... if you would have read my post you would see that i point to the Zapruder film as evidence. Furthermore, if this is not bloody obvious enough, there are many documentaries that confirm the fact that it was impossible for Oswald's rifle and the bullets that his rifle used to do the damage that was done to JFK's skull!

Honestly, dont be a troll. If you continue to insist on me providing you with evidence to confirm the above stated facts, then i shall. But I prefer not to waste my time on stating the obvious facts that many on ATS have done their homework on, agree with me that: There was more than one type of bullet fired at JFK!

NoRulesAllowed

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.

Again proof.... ok you are the second person asking.....

Watch a docu called 'JFK: The Smoking Gun'. This will lay out the facts nicely. It encompasses the entrance hole, bullet type etc. (how the 6.5mm bullet from the Carcano rifle Oswald supposedly shot, cannot fit the entrance wound in the skull of JFK)

The docu doesnt exist on Youtube or vimeo as it is relatively new (2013 i think). So i cant put it here for you to see but i have it and i have seen it twice!

I have to correct you though. I have served in the military and consequently seen some tragedies with my own eyes. I can tell you right now that you were right about one thing, that is 'your very limited understanding'. I can tell you that a quarter of a skull cannot shatter and explode if the bullet wasn't designed to do precisely that. This is not a video game. This is NOT as you put it "what a head-shot can do."
'The Smoking Gun' goes into all of this extensively.

combatmaster-

There are countless documentaries regarding the assassination. Citing one as evidence is no better than me citing a Discovery Channel documentary supporting the lone gunman theory as evidence. You state that you cirte the Z-film as evidence, and then state that because some other members here agree that it proves Oswald didnt shoot him that I should simply accept that.

Call me a troll if you wish, but I require more than "He said so!" to believe that anything is a fact.

You assert quite passionately that a 6.5 full metal jacket round could not cause a significant portion of a skull to break away and cause soft tissue and blood to fly out of the wound. The fact of the matter is, the wound was not "a quarter of the skull" wide open. Yes, a huge portion of the skull was damaged and there was a large portion of it missing, but not a quarter. Creating such a wound does not require a frangible or a hollowpoint. The bullet became misshapen upon impact with the hard surface of the skull, widened out, and cause chaos with the inside of the skull and the right side of the head.

Please view this still from the Z-film and tell me you still believe that a 6.5 round couldnt cause this wound.

Enough already!

A good healthy debate / argument even over a point is valid enough and takes you places that can either confirm or disprove your point of view. This however is like a broken pencil.... pointless.

People have spent most of their lives devoted to the solving of the JFK mystery, and I expect others have had instructions to spend their lives ensuring any traces of evidence contrary to the WC report, is concealed, or at least leading someone down a very very very deep rabbit hole.

I understand that half of the satisfaction of discovering something is the actual process or road taken to discovery, but sometimes we should just let it lie.

Some great minds, some great degrees of expertise here on ATS in my experience, in a whole wide range of fields, but none of them are actually expert in this subject. I doubt anyone is, purely because the evidence is either concealed, tampered with, or downright manipulated, in an effort to put them off the scent, if indeed there is a scent.

Like I said in my first post on this thread, I rarely get involved in these threads, but I really want to because I am as keen to discover as the next person, not as an American, but as a citizen of the world, who also wants to see justice, and is appalled that someone who was generally doing the right thing for the right reasons, was so brutally taken out.

Sorry for the rant, no offence intended, am low, need chocolate..... oh and btw, I feel that LBJ had a major part in it all, as has been discussed on earlier threads on the subject.

He will be remembered here in Ireland with much the same fondness, and missed with an almost equal amount of sadness. Let the man rest in peace.

Mufcutcakeyumyum
Enough already!

A good healthy debate / argument even over a point is valid enough and takes you places that can either confirm or disprove your point of view. This however is like a broken pencil.... pointless.

People have spent most of their lives devoted to the solving of the JFK mystery, and I expect others have had instructions to spend their lives ensuring any traces of evidence contrary to the WC report, is concealed, or at least leading someone down a very very very deep rabbit hole.

I understand that half of the satisfaction of discovering something is the actual process or road taken to discovery, but sometimes we should just let it lie.

Some great minds, some great degrees of expertise here on ATS in my experience, in a whole wide range of fields, but none of them are actually expert in this subject. I doubt anyone is, purely because the evidence is either concealed, tampered with, or downright manipulated, in an effort to put them off the scent, if indeed there is a scent.

Like I said in my first post on this thread, I rarely get involved in these threads, but I really want to because I am as keen to discover as the next person, not as an American, but as a citizen of the world, who also wants to see justice, and is appalled that someone who was generally doing the right thing for the right reasons, was so brutally taken out.

Sorry for the rant, no offence intended, am low, need chocolate..... oh and btw, I feel that LBJ had a major part in it all, as has been discussed on earlier threads on the subject.

He will be remembered here in Ireland with much the same fondness, and missed with an almost equal amount of sadness. Let the man rest in peace.

I have a problem with this, however. Because there ARE facts available, and if one is to debate about who the perpetrators of the murder were or how they went about it, then that debate should at least be based on known facts.

I think healthy debate about it is good, because people learn from debates and it keeps it in the light. The murder of our President isnt something that should ever be accepted or forgotten.

reply to post by Cmessier


I genuinely hope that the truth one day, maybe in our lifetimes reveals itself to us via one vehicle or another. Further to that, I wish anyone who is in pursuit of that truth the very best.

My point previously was really that I think the truth will probably be revealed via a separate piece of information to those items we currently have at our disposal. One that will enable us to discard so much of what is currently out there by way of disinformation. Like I say, I hope it comes in our lifetimes.

reply to post by Mufcutcakeyumyum

Some great minds, some great degrees of expertise here on ATS in my experience, in a whole wide range of fields, but none of them are actually expert in this subject.

I will never claim to be an expert at anything. My problem with experts is that
they can be proven to lack expertise. If I possess any expertise in this affair,
it is simply knowing what expert to consult to counter he said she said.
What I believe about Kennedy's kindness and where it comes from has never
steered me wrong. To say that he ordered men not to do their job, to me,
is ludicrous. He just wasn't that way.

randyvs
reply to post by Mufcutcakeyumyum

 

Some great minds, some great degrees of expertise here on ATS in my experience, in a whole wide range of fields, but none of them are actually expert in this subject.

I will never claim to be an expert at anything. My problem with experts is that
they can be proven to lack expertise. If I possess any expertise in this affair,
it is simply knowing what expert to consult to counter he said she said.
What I believe about Kennedy's kindness and where it comes from has never
steered me wrong. To say that he ordered men not to do their job, to me,
is ludicrous. He just wasn't that way.

I dont think, nor did the Secret Service ever claim, that JFK said "Secret Service, do not protect me".

Allow me to clarify my personal thoughts on the matter.

The footage of Henry Rybka being left behind by the motorcade is confusing and disturbing and has always left a nagging doubt in my mind that there wasnt a large conspiracy. However, that being said, this does not prove a conspiracy in my mind. It a question, certainly, but it is the only evidence that I am able to find, and has too many other potential explanations to be a smoking gun.

Consider that in 1963, the same standards and protocols of protection did not exist. Leaving the top open was the single biggest piece that left the President vulnerable, and yet it was common practice. Tons of spectators along motorcade routes hung from open windows. Regardless of what actions the Secret Service took, an open limo combined with tall buildings with open windows left the President vulnerable to a sniper. Period. No amount of Secret Service agents could have stopped a headshot from a sniper.


Additionally, there was an article in the NY Daily News from the day after the assassination detailing the lax security JFK had the prior week while in NYC. Supposedly, there were complaints about traffic from local residents when the motorcade came through, and the White House responded by decreasing security disruptions.

It all seems foolish today, but this was 1963 and the mindset was completely different.

Please see these 2 photos, one being from Cork, the other being from Hawaii, and see how vulnerable he is. It was standard practice.





JFK said he wanted to tour Texas. JFK said he wanted visibilty. There are hints that JFK asked the Secret Service to be even more lax than protocol dictated back then. I'm not saying he wanted to leave himself vulnerable, I'm saying that looking at the whole situation in context makes sense of why he was SEEMINGLY left so unprotected that day.

For a MUCH larger photo of the President in Ireland, check out this link. Any one of those people in a window with a rifle could have taken him out at any time, realistically.


files.abovetopsecret.com...

reply to post by Cmessier


I'll concede the that the absence of agents is no smoking gun.
But in the end, the indications of
conspiracy are stacked to high for this not to be 100 % conspiracy. Number
one being those enemys of power Kennedy certainly made during his Presidency.
The people who put the assassination together are to powerful to even worry about
all the controversy surrounding what happened. They don't even worry about
the people who do talk For cry'n out loud, they whacked the POTUS in front of
God and everybody. Ask yourself this question do you believe our government officials
would do something like what this conspiracy THEORY (sarcaz) suggests ?

A friend of mine just posted this in a different thread.

Also little known, but well-detailed in Russ Baker's book "Family of Secrets: The Bush Dynasty, America's Invisible Government, and the Hidden History of the Last Fifty Years," is the strong connection between Lee Harvey Oswald and George HW Bush (the senior Bush.) George de Mohrenschildt was a Bush family friend and a roommate of Bush's nephew at Andover prep school. De Mohrenschildt was also Lee Harvey Oswald's main handler and closest friend in the States. This connection has been completely ignored by scholars of the assassination.

It is well-known now that Bush was in Dallas on the day of the assassination, but lied about it.Quote:

George de Mohrenschildt (April 17, 1911 – March 29, 1977) was a petroleum geologist and professor who befriended Lee Harvey Oswald in the summer of 1962 and maintained that friendship until Oswald's death, two days after the assassination of U.S. President John F. Kennedy. He was acquainted with the Bush family, including George H. W. Bush, with whose nephew, Edward G. Hooker, he had been roommates at Phillips Academy in Andover, Massachusetts.[1]
On September 5, 1976, De Mohrenschildt wrote a letter to the Director of the Central Intelligence Agency, George H. W. Bush asking for his assistance in "removing a net" of surveillance from around him. The letter said:

Quote:

"You will excuse this hand-written letter. Maybe you will be able to bring a solution to the hopeless situation I find myself in. My wife and I find ourselves surrounded by some vigilantes; our phone bugged; and we are being followed everywhere. Either FBI is involved in this or they do not want to accept my complaints. We are driven to insanity by the situation. I have been behaving like a damn fool ever since my daughter Nadya died from [cystic fibrosis] over three years ago. I tried to write, stupidly and unsuccessfully, about Lee H Oswald and must have angered a lot of people — I do not know. But to punish an elderly man like myself and my highly nervous and sick wife is really too much. Could you do something to remove the net around us? This will be my last request for help and I will not annoy you any more. Good luck in your important job. Thank you so much.[43][44]"

Bush answered in a letter that he could not help. Soon after that De Mohrenschildt apparently killed himself. Richardson Preyer, then chairman of the House Select Committee on Assassinations, said: "He was a crucial witness."

www.dailypaul.com...


One of the best-researched and most respected exposes you will ever read:

Family of Secrets: The Bush Dynasty, America's Invisible Government, and the Hidden History of the Last Fifty Years

Has anyone here added the fired and butt-hurt CIA traitor and paranoid Allen Dulles to the conspirator list yet? Don't forget that jerk.

I dont put anything past our government.

But I also am unable to find any solid evidence that Lee Harvey Oswald didnt shoot JFK. In fact, the more I looked into it, the more evidence I found that indicated to me that Oswald was the killer. And that's the problem. Because I hold the view that LHO did the shooting that day, many people automatically think I must be either naive or that I simply want to defend our government, and neither is true. I simply like to know the truth about major events.

So much of the controversy around Kennedy has, from the beginning, been a red herring.

- The Grassy Knoll. Why would anyone take a shot from the knoll? Easier to take a shot from behind. Movement wouldnt have been as difficult to track, it would have been difficult to hide there, or if one DID hide behind the fence it would have been extremely difficult to shoot over, and if someone DID shoot JFK in the head from there, why was the LEFT REAR of JFKs head not destroyed, and how in the heck did Jackie escape uninjured? The whole thing is a distraction IMO.

- The "Magic" bullet. Uhhh...there was nothing magic about it. It's pretty clear on the Z-film that both are reacting strongly to SOMETHING at the very same moment, and in the case of JFK it's clear that this stimulus is a wound of some type. It would make complete sense that a high-powered rifle would send its projectile THROUGH one obstacle and into the next. The reason I use a shotgun for home defense rather than any rifle is because of penetration. I dont want to shoot the neighbor along with any intruder I may ever have to put down. The proponents of a "magic" bullet also misalign the 2 victims, but the trajectory makes absolute sense once one realizes where they were sitting in relation to each other and in relation to the TSBD. It's also not "psristine"...its significantly flattened and it's missing lead. Much has been made of this shot and it has drawn the focus and energy of many a researcher, but I'd encourage anyone to watch this section of the Z-film several times and determine for yourself if you see evidenceof both men being struck by the same bullet. TO me, it's clear as day.




As shady as our government is, and as much evil as I FULLY believe they were and are capable of, I find more evidence that Lee Harvey Oswald killed Kennedy than I can of the Government's involvment.

- Lee Harvey Oswald was violent, unstable wife-beater.

- He was an avowed Marxist/Lenenist

- He attempted to kill General Walker

- Marina said that she BEGGED him not to try and kill Richard Nixon once when he was in town

- He was a former Marine. He had PLENTY of practice with firearms.

- He brought "curtain rods" to work that day

- Witnesses, ordinary citizens, stated moments after the murder that they saw a man in the 6th floor window with a rifle, brown hair, white t-shirt, mid 20s. (This one I DONT believe the government could successfully manufacture)

COULD the government make this stuff up? Yeah, probably, but the more the government has to manufacture them ore likely it is for people to come forward. I again use the example of TWA Flight 800. The very investigators that were on the team have come forward to tell the American people that it was a cover up. Witnesses are telling people that it was a cover up, that they SAW missiles shoot it down.

It's very, very hard (I'd say impossible) to keep THAT many people quiet, as many people as one would need for a conspiracy involving the Secret Service, Dallas Police, and dozens of witnesses in Dealey Plaza, I just cant buy into it. It just doesnt make any sense. SOMEONE would have come forward. Instead, what we have are people like James Files, a convicted felon, claiming that he was the shooter on the knoll. Did you know that the ammo he claimed to have used wasnt made until 1973? People get BORED in prison, and inmates are completely and utterly manipulative most of the time. Instead of reliable witnesses having come forward, we get guys like Files.

There are questions still that require answers. But to me, thats exactly what they are, questions. We KNOW the majority of the relevant facts. Like I've said, unless one chooses to believe that the Z-film was altered then I just cant find much room for conspiracy.

reply to post by Cmessier


Im just saying that according to my personal experience, most people misunderstand bullet physics.... and 'The Smoking Gun' is the one documentary that really goes into the bullet physics of that fateful day.

Theories dont change the way bullets work in physical dimension. So there are certain facts i cannot ignore.

As for the 'evidence' being disinformation, who knows!?

NoRulesAllowed
No! Because there would've (probably) been countless ways to kill JFK without all the media attention, somewhere with no publicity, no witnesses, no photos, no films...not STAGE an event in front of 10000s of people? How does that make sense?

Don't tell me there was no way for "someone" to kill someone in a "car accident" or a "heart attack"...without all the unneeded problems which a "staged event" would automatically create.

If you know anything about the Chicago mob, this is the way they kill people. They don't want to be caught but yet they do want others "connected" with them to be in fear. Same could be said about leader of other countries.

As for people being able to keep this a secret and cover-up evidence - absolutely 100% true. There's been plenty of murders and really horrible things done that were covered-up and people never spoke up. Perhaps, things didn't go as perfectly as they thought and they had to scramble to hide some evidence.

Even if people did come forward, unless the government issues a formal statement backing them up, they are almost always not believed.

Cmessier
It's very, very hard (I'd say impossible) to keep THAT many people quiet, as many people as one would need for a conspiracy involving the Secret Service, Dallas Police, and dozens of witnesses in Dealey Plaza, I just cant buy into it. It just doesnt make any sense.

edit on 08/22/2013 by Cmessier because: (no reason given)

Really, it just depend on what alternative theory you believe. It wouldn't need to involve all these people knowingly lying.