Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
JFK was shot in the head, from the rear, from the Dal-Tex building. Not the SE corner of the TSBD. This is the dramatic shot seen on the Zapruder film, and to a lesser extent on the Nix and Muchmore films.
JFK was also shot from the right front. But it was not from the grassy knoll. It was from where the concrete bridge abutted the picket fence -- the junction in front of the railroad tracks. This shot, which occurred just after the rear head shot, has been edited from extant films.
If this really happened, I'm actually part correct. The rounds originated from both the back and front of the victim.
If this really happened, I'm actually part correct. The rounds originated from both the back and front of the victim.
No it did not - all rounds originated from the back of the victim (i.e. from Oswald's perch). Ballistic evidence as well as independent recreation with "dummy targets" support this.
If you believe the Zapruder film available to the public today was edited however, and autopsy records doctored, etc. by the men in black or whoever - then we are out of the "reasonable discussion" zone.
If this really happened, I'm actually part correct. The rounds originated from both the back and front of the victim.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dd714
No it did not - all rounds originated from the back of the victim (i.e. from Oswald's perch). Ballistic evidence as well as independent recreation with "dummy targets" support this.
I don't claim the rounds from the front hit the victim.
Cut down on the single points of failure, cut down on the risks. Another sniper on the roof--maybe your "real" assassin, leaving Oswald most likely to be caught--makes a whole lot of obvious sense if there was planned a second shooter.
Except that cutting down on the risks doesn't entail helping Oswald get caught.... so that it then becomes necessary to hire Jack Ruby to keep him from talking.... and then Ruby might talk... and the whole thing generates endless conspiracy theories about how Oswald was set up.
And we're assuming that something was magical about that day. The plan HAD TO SUCCEED on that day.... or else. If we don't get JFK today, our world comes to an end. The risk of having multiple snipers is worth it. The risk of hiring a sub-standard marksman and misfit like Oswald - who's already on the FBI/CIA watchlist - is well worth it..... doesn't sound logical to me.
Except that cutting down on the risks doesn't entail helping Oswald get caught.... so that it then becomes necessary to hire Jack Ruby to keep him from talking.... and then Ruby might talk... and the whole thing generates endless conspiracy theories about how Oswald was set up.
Well, we wouldn't tell Oswald he was set up or even tell him who we were. Maybe we'd tell him we were Soviet handlers and he'd never know we were CIA.
For me, the biggest angle is how the motorcade route was publicized beforehand, how the route was determined, and how Oswald - already on the FBI/CIA watchlists - had just "coincidentally" gotten a job at that very building 3 weeks earlier.
It's like winning the lottery.
But... someone wins the lottery almost every day.
See, the odds of me winning the lottery are long indeed. But there are millions of lottery ticket buyers out there. And I wonder, how many people out there has the motorcade of a President passed over the years? All the bystanders, homeowners, people at work? It must number into the 8 figures, at least.
It's only fantastic if you look only at Oswald. Yet he was just one of many millions of people who have had the chance to do what he did.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JustMike77
"In the three-year period which followed the murder of President Kennedy and Lee Harvey Oswald, 18 material witnesses died - six by gunfire, three in motor accidents, two by suicide, one from a cut throat, one from a karate chop to the neck, three from heart attacks and two from natural causes.
An actuary, engaged by the "London Sunday Times," concluded that on November 22, 1963, the odds against these witnesses being dead by February 1967, were one hundred thousand trillion to one."
Yeah, Oswald acted alone.
Right.
And that calculation involved considering that the dead were the only witnesses. When you stop to understand that there were, literally, thousands of of 'material witnesses'. For example, some of these 'material witnesses' include reporters who covered the story. Can you imagine how many reporters covered the assassination? Thousands. Another was a friend of a columnist who interviewed Ruby. So now everyone who is friends with someone who interviewed Jack Ruby is a 'material witness'. Another is someone involved in the investigation. How many people - local, federal - do you suppose were involved in the investigation? Into the four figures, certainly.
Given that most of these people would have been middle-aged, it would be a minor miracle if far, far more than 18 (the number cited by the times) weren't dead within three years of the assassination.
And this is precisely why I find interacting with conspiracists so similar to discussions with creationists - their willingness to believe the sheerest nonsense. Here's an example of how easy it is to assemble such laughably absurd 'lists of people being nefariously whacked':
My first assessment doesn't validate the knoll theory. I mention the knoll to point out the possibility of multiple shooters for the purpose of decreasing the chance of failure that day. I don't claim the victim was hit by someone from the knoll. He was hit in the back, both back and head. Rounds could have flown from both the book building and the knoll, with only the building rounds hitting the victim. That would both validate and invalidate the knoll theory, in a way.
Right. I was merely offering my answer to the question you asked:
Would it or wouldn't it validate the Grassy Knoll theory.
Well, we wouldn't tell Oswald he was set up or even tell him who we were. Maybe we'd tell him we were Soviet handlers and he'd never know we were CIA.
But that's just a plot for a movie.
.... and then the first thing out of Oswald's mouth... "I'm just a patsy". Could have just been the standard denial of guilt in his own words. But I've never been convinced either way that Oswald was or wasn't part of a broader conspiracy. But...It all seems very suspicious. Oswald just happens to get a job at that building, and then two weeks later, the parade gets routed by his window... and published in the newspaper for him to read.
It could have been a conspiracy no more complex than somebody throwing the dog a bone and waiting to see if he pounces on it.
Considering the number of people who died not long after the the day as the list post #156 shows, I just started wondering if that day was just one of a number the various perps (if applicable) choose but didn't follow through until that day. Maybe there were different plans for before and after that day. Maybe a plan was rejected. Maybe a plan started to be implemented but was called off for whatever reason. Esteemed people having various opinions on who was responsible for the assassination backs this up further. Ex: the fb_i agent talks about Milteer; Robert Blakey, who wrote the RICO laws used to prosecute the mob thinks its the mob that did it; Jesse Ventura believes William Harvey of ci_a and some guy named David Morales did it, etc.
A recent JFK thread "Where Were You When" has given me pause to ask the question:
If, after all these years, definitive proof of a JFK conspiracy surfaced, what would be the reaction from:
1. The public
2. The establishment
3. The U.S. government
And, perhaps most importantly, what would it mean for the future of the country? Insurrection? Indifference? Somewhere in between? Most people believe there was a conspiracy. But they are not sure. What if they were sure?
Thoughts?
At this point, a shrug of the shoulders. The conspirators almost certainly wouldn't be alive today to prosecute. Plus a very large percentage of the country has looked at the evidence ad nauseam and concluded that there was a conspiracy anyway.
And, given the track records of most of the presidents since Kennedy, not to mention the continuing corruption of our institutions, you couldn't exactly point to a sudden erosion of trust in the establishment. Hell, those guys have been betraying our trust for decades. Why do you think unhinged populists such as Trump and Sanders have such traction today? Because people are willing to vote for any idiot who doesn't represent the establishment.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
