Originally posted by ivanhoeThe video shows that the matter is ejected initally forward (and a lot of it with an upward component too) from the big gaping (exit) wound toward the front of his head.
Compare the path of the brain tissue with the path the inside of the banana is moving. Also note the "impact wound" in case of the banana video. Do you see the "tissue" exploding in the direction the bullet came from ? The bulk of the tissue emerging from the banana is moving together with the bullet to the right. I do not think that a bit of air turbulence would have stopped it from going that way.
Originally posted by LemonJelloLook at the way the flags move on the front of the car. The blue one is waving in a modest way but look at the American flag on the side where the President's seat is. In spite of the motion of the car the American flag is barely moving just before the President is shot in the head. Now why should pieces of the skull move that fast contrary to the direction the shot was fired if the wind wasn't even able to move this little flag ?
They are in a convertible, and I think there is definitely evidence on the clip that they are being influenced by the wind -- as seen by their hair and and the flowers in front.
Have you taken a look at the matter that gets ejected? What sort of path do you think it follows?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UAwV1Tor9js
(ever held an ounce of steak in your hand, the wind doesn't take it away that easily, certainly not if it was ejected in a violent way as a result of a gunshot)
.... and besides ... I do not see any wild hair waving ... and the flowers are being held by Mrs. Connally gowing to the car's floor taking cover. Of course they move, but not because of the wind.
Originally posted by ivanhoeDamn, I don't know why you weren't on the Warren Commission.
Look at the way the flags move on the front of the car. The blue one is waving in a modest way but look at the American flag on the side where the President's seat is. In spite of the motion of the car the American flag is barely moving just before the President is shot in the head. Now why should pieces of the skull move that fast contrary to the direction ...[text shortened]... ly gowing to the car's floor taking cover. Of course they move, but not because of the wind.
2 edits
Originally posted by ivanhoeThe facts all seem to support a shot from the rear:
Look at the way the flags move on the front of the car. The blue one is waving in a modest way but look at the American flag on the side where the President's seat is. In spite of the motion of the car the American flag is barely moving just before the President is shot in the head. Now why should pieces of the skull move that fast contrary to the direction ly gowing to the car's floor taking cover. Of course they move, but not because of the wind.
The extent of damage on the front of his head; the fact that the majority of ejected matter is initially projected forward; the fact that his head was thrust backward -- they all support a frontal exit wound.
What, in your opinion, is the best evidence for a rear exit wound? I honestly don't see any good evidence from the videos for that.
Some other thing:
If you claim the bullet came from behind then the exit wound is clearly marked on the Zapruder film as the bright light on Kennedy's forehead, right ?
My first question would be why is there this bright light.
The second issue would be where the entrance wound would be if you take into account that the shooter is sitting on the third, or was it the fourth, floor of a building located at some distance behind the car and the exit wound is just above his right eye on the right side of his skull. Draw an imaginative line and you'll discover where the entrance wound should have been.
I've never believed that Oswald wasn't the sole killer, although I've never bought into Posner's account wholesale. Bottom line: why would President Kennedy merit a conspiracy anyway? It wasn't as if he was a radical threat to the Establishment - he was just the same old soup in a different package.
2 edits
Originally posted by LemonJelloThen let's continue. Take a look at the banana photograph. There is a puff to be seen on the side where the bullet enters the banana, the entrance wound so to speak. Of course this puff will be seen first and then you will be able to see the ejection of tissue on the right hand side of the photo.
The facts all seem to support a shot from the rear:
The extent of damage on the front of his head; the fact that the majority of ejected matter is initially projected forward; the fact that his head was thrust backward -- they all support a frontal exit wound.
What, in your opinion, is the best evidence for a rear exit wound? I honestly don't see any good evidence from the videos for that.
Can you show me this puff, of course also on the left side of the President's head same as in the banana picture because in both cases you claim the bullet came from the left, but now in the Zapruder film.
Which number of the stills is it where you first see this puff, the indication that on this spot on his skull and on this side of the skull the entrance wound was made ?
&mode=related&search=
Originally posted by AmauroteHe became a threat because he wanted to drastically change the US foreign policy during the Cold War. He wanted to retreat the troops from Nam and sign a peace treaty with the Communist Sowjet Union.
I've never believed that Oswald wasn't the sole killer, although I've never bought into Posner's account wholesale. Bottom line: why would President Kennedy merit a conspiracy anyway? It wasn't as if he was a radical threat to the Establishment - he was just the same old soup in a different package.
Originally posted by ivanhoeRubbish. Kennedy increased the US troop presence in Vietnam from a couple hundred advisors to about 20,000 combat troops with orders to fire in "self defense". As to making "peace" with the Soviet Union this overlooks the slight problem that the US wasn't at war with the USSR. And nobody shot Nixon for withdrawing from Vietnam and establishing detente with the Soviets and the Red Chinese. This whole "theory" is typical, paranoid conspiracy nonsense without a shred of evidence to support it (of course, all the evidence that could corroborate it has been cleverly disposed of by the evil conspirators).
That's all very relevant, however I think you are forgetting the issue which truly made the difference in the decision to kill him and that is the, in many eyes catastrophic, intended presidential policy of withdrawing the troops from Vietnam and making peace with the Communist Sowjet Union. His brother Robert was killed for the same reason. He wanted to car ...[text shortened]... President of the United States. They decided to kill him too before he would become President.
Originally posted by no1marauderKennedy may have increased US presence in Vietnam, but he also was in favour of withdrawing them and had he not been assasinated it is unlikely that Vietnam the scourge of American military pride would have occured.
Rubbish. Kennedy increased the US troop presence in Vietnam from a couple hundred advisors to about 20,000 combat troops with orders to fire in "self defense". As to making "peace" with the Soviet Union this overlooks the slight problem that the US wasn't at war with the USSR. And nobody shot Nixon
The US may not have been engaged in a 'hot' war with the Soviets but they were still engaged in one albeit it very 'cold'. MAD or mutually assured destruction came out of that cold war era, and it was Kennedy's performance in the thirteen days of the missile crises that seriously damaged his credentials as having the steely nerve necesary to stare oblivion in the face and not step down to appease the Russians. The hawks thought he was a soft little dove ready to wimp out with grand rhetoric and bluster. Kennedy was deemed unfit to serve at that momentous time in history. To compare Nixons back down as having no consequence thereby 'proving' that as an underlying factor in Kennedy's demise Vietnam was just a mirage, sort of ignores the facts that money was being made hand over fist by the military industrial complex for about a decade, and the war for the hearts and minds of ordinary Americans to support the effort had long been lost after endless pictures of body bags arriving home had monotonously punctuated Americas impotence against such a 'backward' country such was Vietnam.
Before people dismiss my earlier aspersion to J Edgar, ask yourself, which government agency post 22 Nov 1963 showed more ineptitude, clumsiness, almost downright criminal negligence in investigating JFK's assasination?
Would the Warren Commision have been as compelling an obfuscation for a bunch of bunnies ( rabbit warren dwellers) such is the collective mindset of the American People as imagined by their propoganda outlets had it not had the excellent support of the FBI in mishandling and supressing anything that might have suggested anything other than a now long dead Oswald as the mastermind of the death of Camelot?
If you would look smart and consider all the facts maybe consider the article by Michael Morrissey "The Second Biggest Lie" which by way of introduction states that "The biggest lie of our time, after the Warren Report, is the notion that Johnson
merely continued or expanded Kennedy's policy in Vietnam after the
assassination."
The article does an in depth into "NSAM 263 signed on Oct. 11, 1963, officially approved and implemented the same
McNamara-Taylor recommendations that had prompted the press statement of Oct. 2. They recommended that:
"A program be established to train Vietnamese so that essential functions now performed by U.S. military personnel can be carried out by Vietnamese by the end of 1965. It should be possible to withdraw the bulk of U.S. personnel by that time.
"In accordance with the program to train progressively Vietnamese to take over military functions, the Defense Department should announce in the very near future presently prepared plans to withdraw 1000 U.S. military personnel by the end of 1963. This action should be explained in low key as an initial step in a long-term program to replace U.S. personnel with trained Vietnamese without impairment of the war effort" (Pentagon Papers, NY: Bantam, 1971, pp. 211-212).
This whole debate will always revolve around a belief in whether or not you could accept that there are wheels within the wheels of the US administration that for want of a better term are the embodiement of evil. If for you the real conspiracy is to besmirch the honorable reputation of the members of the house and the senate and to denigrate the respect due to such an august body that are the houses of representation, then for you any notion of the Warren Commission tinkering with the truth is probably a thin edge of the wedge of a conspiracy to help promote the hegemonic decline of the US. i think you may be paranoid.
Originally posted by kmax87🙄🙄🙄
Kennedy may have increased US presence in Vietnam, but he also was in favour of withdrawing them and had he not been assasinated it is unlikely that Vietnam the scourge of American military pride would have occured.
The US may not have been engaged in a 'hot' war with the Soviets but they were still engaged in one albeit it very 'cold'. MAD or mutually ass ...[text shortened]... o help promote the hegemonic decline of the US. i think you may be paranoid.
I'm perfectly aware of the October 11, 1963 memo; it was written at a time when things appeared to be going well in Vietnam, announces the same plan of "Vietnamization" that was vigourously supported by the Nixon administration and was in line with the US military assessments. A withdrawal of 1,000 troops (which was a tentative proposal) would have still left 95% of the US troops in Vietnam. I've read enough conspiracy theorists misreading history to know that these facts will make not even the slightest impression on you.
Originally posted by no1marauderIt depends if the bullet passed through or if it glanced across the forehead and threw up a spray a bit like that one famous shot of Ali hitting Foreman such that his head sends off a shower of sweat as it twists to the side. Yes a mellon wrapped in tape filled with fluid will probably go on the direction of the bullet's trajectory based on the reaction to this jet blast. But most of us including Kennedy would have a skull a lot harder than a melon wrapped with a bit of tape, so the imperceptable slowing of the bullet as it goes through the object is a problematic concept.
Do you now understand when a bullet exits an object, it forces the object back in the direction the bullet entered the object? Or do you need a review of high school science?
Imperceptible when comparing the exit versus the entry speed in absolute terms in both cases would lead one to conclude that the effect through either would be the same.
But you would only have to reflect on the things you may have shot in your own time to work out that there are principles of momentum in collison at work, that dictate the resting places of two objects after impact that are as much dependant on mass, material hardness, as well as time of contact during impact.
If I had a dollar for every time someone invoked Newton to then go on and make some spurious pseudo scientific claim.
When you shot targets with an air-rifle, in which direction did they fall. At the county fair to win your sweetheart the gigantic pink bear which way did the lightweight tin targets fall?
Now given your head may be as soft as a mellon, but bone will absorb the shock of impact and experience a much greater transfer of energy and momentum in the direction of the bullet than say a mellon would.
Yes Hollywood has exaggerated the impact of ordinance on hapless victims, but anyone who would use that as an argument to bolster up a dubious experiment to show that a pressure vessel with a lightweight skin can produce a jetstream of matter, to invert ones expectation of the direction it will move when fired upon also probably also believes that you can duplicate every real life situation in a lab using very poor physical representations with little thought as to how the approximation of the physical target should have also modified the weapon, its bullet and the speed with which it is fired.
When you see the video you cant help thinking that that shot has just taken out a significant chunk of JFK's head across the corner of his forehead and temple. If that was not enough bone to cause the head to move backwards then I dont know.
Originally posted by no1marauderJust in case I was dozing off, am I to understand then that you accept the findings of the Warren Commission and that you believe that the Kennedy assasination was the work of a lone gunman, Oswald?
🙄🙄🙄
I've read enough conspiracy theorists misreading history to know that these facts will make not even the slightest impression on you.
Because if you do, I can do you a great deal on a portable hand held cold fusion device, that will revolutionize the way you consume energy and for one small fee end your dependence on fossil fuel.
1 edit
Originally posted by kmax87Your jokes are even lamer than your tedious posts.
Just in case I was dozing off, am I to understand then that you accept the findings of the Warren Commission and that you believe that the Kennedy assasination was the work of a lone gunman, Oswald?
Because if you do, I can do you a great deal on a portable hand held cold fusion device, that will revolutionize the way you consume energy and for one small fee end your dependence on fossil fuel.
Yes, I accept the fact that Oswald was the lone gunman. All the scientific and forsenic evidence supports that conclusion and paranoid speculation about the "evil forces" in the US government does not override a big ole exit wound.
EDIT: I invite you to read the Warren Commission report and tell me where, specifically, it is in error. And these errors must support a second gunmen or "Oswald was a patsy" theory. http://www.archives.gov/research/jfk/warren-commission-report/