It took him 6 seconds to fire three shots with his shitty rifle guys the first shit pushed him back so obviously the shot come in front of the car by a fence its quite sad how this country runs dont like it all government killing americans just to make money fucked up but thats the world
Between the second and third shots, for about 4 seconds LHO reloaded his rifle again, finds the moving target is shooting back. Unable to make these moves and hit a target of just over 15 cm in size and 90 meters 25kmp / h movement. This procedure is impossible.
Israel & Mossad Assassinated JFK w/ orders from Israel PM David Ben-Gurion. JFK wanted to inspect how Israel ILLEGALLY got Nuclear weapons & nuclear power, how many & from where.
@FANJG24 If you're referring to Oswald's comment, "I'm just a patsy!" - what he REALLY said, in response to the question, "Did you shoot the president?" was this:
"They've taken me in because of the fact that I lived in the Soviet Union. I'm just a patsy!"
Oswald was showboating for the press. Oswald knew good & well WHY they "took him in" - it was for killing a police officer, NOT because he lived in the Soviet Union. Oswald made many self-serving statements to the press during that weekend.
Ok let me just get this straight, nobody knows for sure that Oswald was the one that did it, but i can understand the panic of the people around all this mess and all the anger! but shooting oswald and not beeing sure if he was the one. that is so sad! but then again attentionhoe!!!
I understand that oswald was a trained Marine Corp rifleman. these guy are top notch, how could he not first clear his down range field of vision, we were taught this repeatedly!
@Bigdaddon I imagine there was a lot of stuff Oswald didn't think through all the way. It's hard to expect completely rational behavior from an individual who committing one of the most irrational acts imaginable. Oswald's "escape plan" was not exactly well thought out, as well. In fact, he's extremely lucky it went as well as it did. Essentially, he was "captured" within 90 seconds of firing the last shot.
@Mattheweueu Viewing the Zapruder film, it certainly DOES appear as if Jackie is grabbing something off the back of the limo. Of course, when questioned, Jackie had no recollection that she even got out of her seat like that. From testimony of Parkland doctors/nurses, Jackie had some brain matter in her hand while they were all in the trauma room. So, it appears the answer is YES to your question. But it's possible Jackie got the brain matter while JFK was in the limo.
The notion that shots came from the Snipers Nest is one of the basic tenets of the WC and is mostly accepted as fact but it is strange that so little actual evidence exists that supports this. If one looks at the other side of the argument, the first question is why was the rifle not hidden better? Lee worked in that building, I am sure he could have devised a way to quickly hide it inside one of the stacks of boxes that would have taken hours to find,
If you thnk the kill shot came from the book depsoitory you should stop uploadeing videos because you have no perception of reality. The kill shot that took off the front right part of his forehead came from in front of him, somewhere like the railway tracks behind the grassy knoll. Watch the Zapruda tape at the 23 second mark and watch his head vapurize. There is not a snowballs chance in hell that shot was fired from behind him. Get a clue in the future.
Although this is plausible I still refuse to beleive that the third shot, the head shot, came from behind Kennedy. In the Zapruder film Keneddy's head went back and to the left, you don't take a hit from a bullet into the head and move towards it, you move away from it. This is just basic logic
@billabongzilla With all due respect your basic logic is flawed. A bullet going through an object does not have the mass neccessary to cause much motion at all in either direction. JFK's (forward then) backward head motion was a neuromuscular response. Further, the spray of brain matter to JFK's front is consistent with an exit wound in the front, ergo an entry wound in the rear. The fatal shot, therefore, had to have come from behind him. . . .I still have a hard time believing LHO acted alone.
Somebody, ANYBODY, please explain to me why if Oswald was the lone gunman firing from the Book depository, why on Earth would he wait until the motorcade was driving away from him with obsticles (trees) blocking a clear view when he could have shot Kennedy at a much closer range with NO obstructions on N.Houston st. before the motorcade turned left on Elm st. I'm not saying no shots were fired from the 6th floor, the fatal shot came from the Knoll and there were more than 1 assassin.
@massuerb The shots were still easy as the limousine was westbound in Elm. Also, he had a much better chance of going unnoticed if most of the DPD and Secret Service had their backs to him. If he shot while they were all facing him - he would have probably NEVER gotten the opportunity to shoot THREE times. And, as it turned out, his choice has been vindicated by the fact that very few saw him, he got 3 shots, and he was able to escape.
@davidemerling Like Querty95ktv asked...What about james tague???? When did Mr Oswald fire the shot that hit and shattered the curb 400 feet down elm????
@migo53333 In all likelihood, the BEST explanation is that Tague was "injured" by the first, missed shot which was either deflected off a tree branch or hit the street and caused pieces to be deflected down range.
@massuerb because it was a crossfire zone halfway down elm......witnesses have stated that they observed a man standing in that window looking down towards the overpasss, not up houston street where the car was coming from.....hmmmm.....
@massuerb An 88 yard head shot is not easy. And I think there was a good bit of a wind blowing that day which would complicated things even more. It seems to me that to pass up the Houston shot proves other shooters in other locations.
@massuerb Actually, this is one of the really good arguments for a conspiracy. From looking at the SS reenactment one can see just how easy in comparison the Houston shot was. A screen of boxes could have been placed for concealment from the street leaving just a small gap for the weapon. No one could have know where the shots were coming from. And if it was not going to be a head on shot why did the shooter not go to the other end of the floor?
@massuerb Because (if you haven't had advanced sharpshooter training, you wouldn't know this) as Kennedy is pulling away, his relative motion in the scope is rapidly decreasing. Kennedy was picked off at the perfect point in his motorcade move. If he'd shot closer, it'd have been harder to hit him. Play Halo more, and you'll see the effect against a moving target. Very hard to shoot something moving really close by with a sniper scope.
It seems the mad spammer is at it again. I'm getting rather tired of going through posts and un-spamming them. I wish YouTube would allow the OWNER of the site to disable that feature. *I* would rather be the one to determine what is and isn't spam. NONE of what I can see qualifies as spam. I might not agree with the post - but it's topical. Please stop it whoever you are. It's childish and it is CLEARLY a regular visitor who is doing this.
@Rtmax45 Ironically, the 1st shot (the closest) was probably one of the most difficult of the 3 shots. Oswald had to deal with 1) Relatively rapid tracking rates, 2) obstructions and 3) an awkwardly steep, downward angle. In fact, it may have been so steep that it precluded him resting the rifle on the box at all. Another factor is NERVES. The tension must have been building to quite a high level. Once the trigger is pulled, the tension is released and it becomes easier to take subsequent shots.
And extremely simple to prove the conspiracy. Between the second and third shots, LHO had to reload the weapon, find the head of JFK and shoot again, the time marked on the video zapruther between the second and third shots are 4 sec in the video is a tangible evidence. Doing this maneuver is acether as the lottery. It is impossible to a 24 year old kid can do it. He missed the first shot to 20 feet without having to maneuver the weapon.
Can't believe it's been 48 years ago today that JFK was assassinated. I was in kindergarten & remember watching the coffin being taken off the plane in DC & my dad on the couch crying, but I was too young to understand what had happened. I read Dr. Charles Crenshaw's 1991 book "Conspiracy of Silence." He was one of the doctors at Parkland in the ER that day & said that Kennedy's neck wound was an entrance wound, meaning at least one of the shots came fom the front. Read it!
Plausible pile is the best way to describe this farce. Notice how the camera simulation would be and is perfectly still like on a track. No human in our history could duplicate that impossible feat.
When they framed Oswald they should have had him down behind the fence, holding a semiautmatic rifle in his hands, DEAD, as the dallas police stood around his lifeless corpse. The story that they chose made it look like they thought of the cover story as though they didnt know if it happen.
16. "After the shooting in Dealey Plaza, nearly all sixteen warehousemen who worked in the Depository Building returned to the building and were present at a roll call of employees. Only Lee Harvey Oswald and Charles Givens were not present. Givens was located shortly thereafter. So only Oswald left the building and was unaccounted for." Vincent Bugliosi, Reclaiming History
"15.Though Oswald was probably more politically oriented than all 13 other warehousemen at the Book Depository put together, if we are to believe Oswald’s story, he apparently was the only one who had no interest at all in watching the presidential motorcade go by, either from out on the street or from a window, claiming in one version that he was having lunch on the 1st floor of the Book Depository at the time of the shooting, and in another version that he was working on the sixth floor..."
@abennett4 " if we are to believe Oswald’s story, he apparently was the only one who had no interest at all in watching the presidential motorcade go by" jack ruby the man who weeped for his dead president and who killed oswald to spare jfks widow having to testify at a trial didnt bother watching the motorcade either even tho he was just 3 blocks away .
... Indeed, Oswald the political animal, was so uninterested in the fact that the most powerful politician on earth had been shot that he had no inclination to stick around for a few minutes and engage in conversation with his coworkers about the sensational and tragic event. Does that make any sense?" Vincent Bugliosi, Reclaiming History
14. There is yet another reason why Oswald’s statement that he was on the first floor eating lunch at the time of the shooting makes no sense at all. If he had been, once he heard the shots and the screaming and all the commotion outside, if he were innocent, what is the likelihood that he would have proceeded to go, as he claims, up to the second floor to get himself a Coke? How could any sensible person believe a story like that?" Vincent Bugliosi, Reclaiming History
@MrKUBRICKIAN The investigators did detailed reconstruction of the assassins movements and Oswald had plenty of time (didn't even need to rush) to reach his encounter with Trully and Officer Baker.
@abennett4 Wrong,the fbi man howlett,never put the rifle in the position it was found.Also,baker in his re-enactment,jogged,instead of sprinting to the building.This was backed up in the actual film showing baker running to the doorway of the building.
@MrKUBRICKIAN It really is a moot point as the HSCA estimate of Oswald's trip was as much as 45 seconds faster than the Warren Commission's estimate of the Baker encounter. Also, the only evidence of Baker "sprinting" is an about 10-second video. We can not assume how fast and what obstacles he encountered the rest of the time or how long it took him to even start toward the building.
@abennett4 Baker said he started toward the building as soon as he heard the final shot.He also said that he and truly got to the second floor,less than a minute after the final shot.
@MrKUBRICKIAN Well the estimate by experienceed investigors put Baker getting there between 60 and 90 second. Again, it does not really matter since the HSCA has Oswald getting there in 45 seconds.
@MrKUBRICKIAN Baker gave a few conflicting times. The fact of the matter is that Baker didn't hit a stopwatch. That was the last thing on his mind. The best he could do is give an estimate. The best we can do is gather what we can from videos and photos - piece it together - run some reenactments to establish some reasonable times - and determine whether a Truly/Oswald encounter on the 2nd floor was possible. The answer is a resounding - YES!
@davidemerling The answer isn't a resounding yes,the f.b.i re-enactment was a travesty.Baker sprinted to the doorway(as confirmed by actual footage),he didn't jog as he did in the re-enactment.
"the porch where, in September of 1963, Lee Oswald would sit in his underwear after dark, whispering "Pow! Pow! Pow!" under his breath and dry-firing what was going to become the most famous rifle in American history at passing pedestrians." Stephen King, '11/22/63', ppage 288
13. "Although in his interrogation on Friday afternoon Oswald said he was having lunch on the 1st floor of the Book Depository at the time of the assassination, during Sunday’s interrogation Oswald slipped up and placed himself on the 6th floor at the time of the assassination, making him the only employee of the Book Depository who placed himself on the 6th floor, or was placed there by anyone else, at the time we know an assassin shot Kennedy from the 6th floor." V Bugliosi, Reclaiming History
@abennett4 another interesting bit of slight of hand by bugliosi , bugliosi gleaned this piece of information from page 636 of the warren report which he makes refference to in his book as opposed to the actuall interrogation notes which mention nothing not one word about oswald saying he was on the 6th floor AT THE TIME of the assassination which was 12.30 . what bugliosi is talking about is a refference in notes taken by harry holmes at oswalds last interrogation on sunday--------------------
@fobrien1 That's what Bugliosi said "during Sunday’s interrogation Oswald slipped up and placed himself on the 6th floor at the time of the assassination, "
@abennett4 "That's what Bugliosi said "during Sunday’s interrogation Oswald slipped up and placed himself on the 6th floor at the time of the assassination, "
that maybe what bugliosi said but its inaccurate ,that you didnt even attempt to dispute what i said speaks vollumes ,i can see why your comment was flagged as spam .
@abennett4 see commission exhibit 2064 page 491 . holmes in his notes says "when asked as to his whereabouts at the time of the shooting ,he stated that when lunch time came ,and he didnt say which floor he was on ,he said one of the negro employees invited him to eat lunch with him and he stated ,you go on down and send the elevator back up and i will join you in a few minutes ,before he could finish whatever he was doing ,he stated ,------------------------------------------------------
@abennett4 the commotion surounding the assassination took place and when he went downstairs ,a policeman questioned him as to his identification and his boss stated that ,he is one of our employees ,.
now the problems with holmes notes should be quite obvious ,firstly look at the line "he stated that when lunch time came ,and he didnt say which floor he was on " when the workers went to lunch it was about 11.40 to 11.45 and not 12.30 which was the time of the shooting -------------------------
@abennett4 the second problem is in this line "before he could finish whatever he was doing ,he stated the commotion surounding the assassination took place and when he went downstairs ,a policeman questioned him as to his identification and his boss stated that ,he is one of our employees"
the problem here should be obvious the time the workers went to lunch was 11.40 to 11.45 and officer baker wouldnt arrive for atleast 45 minutes more ---------------------------------
@abennett4 so baker couldnt have stopped oswald as he was attempting to go down to lunch . again we see bugliosi chooses to use clearly inaccurate and misleading notes instead of using bookhouts very clear notes or fritz notes in a very shoddy attempt to falsely assert that oswald said he was on the 6th floor at 12.30 the time of the assassination ,from the notes i posted we see that oswald was talking about lunchtime 11.40 to 11.45 not 12.30 . --------------------------------------
@abennett4 we allready saw bugliosi as quoted by abennett saying "oswald claimed he ate with jarmin "(in the hope of getting an alibi) and that was shown not only to be inaccurate but to be completely untrue ,he had fritz and bookhouts notes which he ignores and he used a piece of fritz wc testimony where he says oswald said he ate with two of the black employees ,fritz testifying from memory made a mistake we know this because fritz is completely contradicted by his own notes .
"12. Apart from Brennan, we know that Kennedy's assassin was at the subject 6th-floor window. Among other evidence, the rifle that was used to murder Kennedy was found on the sixth-floor of the Book Depository Building, witnesses other than Brennan saw a rifle sticking out of the southeasternmost window on the 6th floor, a sniper's nest was found around the subject window, nd three cartridge casings from the murder weapon was found on the sixth floor beneath the window." V.B., Reclaiming History
11. "After the first and second shots rang out, a motorcade witness, Howard Brennan, sitting on a short concret wall directly across the street from the sixth-floor window, looked up and actually saw Oswald in the window holding his rifle. Only 120 feet away from Oswald, he got a very good look as he watched, in horror, Oswald (whom he had seen in the window earlier, before the motorcade had arrived) take diliberate aim and fire the final shot from his rifle." V. Bugliosi, Reclaiming History
@abennett4 "11. "After the first and second shots rang out, a motorcade witness, Howard Brennan, sitting on a short concret wall directly across the street from the sixth-floor window, looked up and actually saw Oswald in the window holding his rifle. Only 120 feet away from Oswald, he got a very good look as he watched, in horror,"
and yet he said he couldnt identify the man he saw and the commission decided not to base their findings on brennans testimony .
@abennett4 Howard Brennan, the welder with telescopic vision. These days we know what welding can do to eyesight. Anyway he was a "shining star" for the WC. He described the shooter down to the colour of his drawers but refused to go into the building to show where the shooter was and failed to id Lee Oswald in a lineup, but did recognize one of the Dallas Police. I think he was a frustrated psychologist in another life.
@abennett4 3) Though claiming he saw two people at a 5th-floor window of the TSBD, he was unable to recognize them when they were introduced to him, and to say at which window these two men were standing.
"To my amazement the man still stood there in the window! He didn't appear to be rushed. There was no particular emotion visible on his face except for a slight smirk."
10. "Desite the fact that the president's visit and route received enormous and inescapable attention in the Dallas papers and on radio and TV, and that Oswald usually read both daily newspapers each day and had to know what was happening, he asked coworker James Jarman somewhere between 9.30 and 10.00 on the morning of the assassination why ppeople were gathering around the corner of Houston and Elm." Vincent Bugliosi, Reclaiming History
@abennett4 well finally bugliosi says some thing which has a basis in fact ,yes oswald asked jarmin why all the people were standing around outside . however he again omits some important information ,for instance oswald when at his rooming house stayed in his room more often than not and so he watched little or no tv there and he only went home 4 days in 6 weeks so he cant have seen much tv at the paines .and the paper he would read in work was usually atleast a day old .
Everyone should pick up a copy of Stephen King's '11/2/63'. He really nails Oswald! Oswald is portrayed as a controlling and abusive husband constantly beating Marina and telling her to "Pokhoda, cyka" ("Walk, bitch"). He is described as "Just a skinny little wife-aboser waiting to be famous." page 65
9. "Every morning after arriving for work at the Book Depository Building, Oswald would go to the domino room on the first floor of the building and read the previous morning's edition of the Dallas Morning News, which another employee had brought in. On the morning of the assassination, for the first time, he did not do this." Vincent Bugliosi, Reclaiming History
Bugliosi: Was there any large defect to the rear of the president's head?
Stringer (the autopsy photographer): No. All there was was a small entrance wound to the back of the head. During the autopsy, Dr. Humes pointed out this entrance wound to everyone.
@TennesseeOwnsMyBones i guess stringer forgot to tell bugliosi what he said about the head wound previously and i dare say bugliosi (who with 21 years of research had to know all about ) didnt ask him about that either . so lets see what stringer said about the head wound shall we .
@TennesseeOwnsMyBones Lifton: "When you lifted him out, was the main damage to the skull on the top or in the back?" Stringer: "In the back." Lifton: "In the back?...High in the back or lower in the back?" Stringer: "In the occipital part, in the back there, up above the neck."
Lifton: "In other words, the main part of his head that was blasted away was in the occipital part of the skull?" Stringer: "Yes. In the back part."
@TennesseeOwnsMyBones Lifton: "The back portion. Okay. In other words, there was no five-inch hole in the top of the skull?" Stringer: "Oh, some of it was blown off--yes, I mean, toward, out of the top in the back, yes." Lifton: "Top in the back. But the top in the front was pretty intact?" Stringer: "Yes, sure." Lifton: "The top front was intact?"
@TennesseeOwnsMyBones Lifton, unsatisfied with precisely what Stringer may have meant by the 'back of the head' asked, as he had asked McHugh, if by "back of the head" Stringer meant the portion of the head that rests on the rear portion of a bathtub during bathing. Stringer replied, "Yes."--as had McHugh (BE, p.516)
(now why didnt he tell vinnie that ? i guess it slipped his mind .)
""There's no hole in the back of the head there; is there?" (John Stringer, ARRB Deposition)"
@TennesseeOwnsMyBones so in your mind if some thing doesnt match the official version you were told your saying that by definition it is a lie ? stringer not only told lifton about the back of the head he was recorded saying it and he was quite clear in pointing out the position of the head wound . i guess stringer forgot all about that when he was being questioned by bugliosi .
@fobrien1 I wasn't 'told' by anyone. I researched it myself. And yes, Dave Lifton's theory probably ranks as the most grotesquely insane... possibly even worse than the 'Hickey accidentally shot JFK'-theory fostered by Menninger.
@TennesseeOwnsMyBones you seem to want to link some theory with me (if i posted a comment with some theory im happy for you to point it out to me but i wont hold my breath ) and also you seem to want to say that this theory in some way changes what stringer or another witness said . presumably you deny stringer said any such thing or that lifton made him swallow some angle dust or some thing to make him say these things .
@fobrien1 No... what I say is that Stringer said a lot of things... and contradicted himself plenty. Furthermore, you probably didn't see that the Parkland doctors who spoke of a 'wound to the back' later admitted that their perception was off, and that they fully support the autopsy findings.
@TennesseeOwnsMyBones "No... what I say is that Stringer said a lot of things... and contradicted himself plenty"
and once again no where in your original comment that i reposted did you mention even once that you thought stringer was unreliable ,you quoted stringers testimony to bugliosi simply to assert that there was no large hole in the rear of the head .so you find stringer reliable when he says what you want to hear and unreliable the rest of the time .
@fobrien1 As someone who has read all of Bugliosi's voluminous book, it is EXACTLY why I quoted it, as Bugliosi says the same thing: Stringer said a LOT of things. You don't think Bugliosi tackled this issue???
@TennesseeOwnsMyBones again its clear to all you quoted stringers testimony to bugliosi because he said there was no large wound and for no other reason ,no where in your original quote did you mention even once you thought stringer was unreliable . just to add the trial you quote from had no basis in law what so ever it was a mock trial for a tv audience.
@fobrien1 It was not in the trial. It was in the book.. where Bugliosi points out that Stringer said a lot of things, to a lot of people. THAT was the point.
@TennesseeOwnsMyBones im sorry realize its from the book but i thought it was a piece of stringers testimony from the mock trial as that is how it appears .
lifton:i see i see let me ask you another way of stating that .and this is a good way of stating what i asked you before .if you lie back in a bathtub you know just in a totally prone position and you and your head rests against the bathtub is that the part of the head you know ,is that the part of the head that was damaged ?.
@fobrien1 Amazing... you take everyone and the kitchen sink as 'proof' where the wounds are concerned, save for the actual autopsy doctors... a-ma-zing...
@TennesseeOwnsMyBones you cited stringers testimony to bugliosi above and now presumably your saying he is not reliable is that what your saying? ,he is reliable when saying what you want to hear but unreliable when he contradicts the official story . if you can prove stringer didnt say the words i posted prove it but of course you cant can you because you know he said it and not only that he was recorded saying it .
@fobrien1 No, I cited it to show you that Stringer said a lot of things. Contrary to the autopsy findings, which, on all occassions, state the same: two shots struck JFK from behind, no further entrance wounds were found, and the defect to Kennedy's head was mostly toward the top-right, streching to the parietal and occiptal bones. Ergo, no 'big hole' in the back of the head.
@TennesseeOwnsMyBones "No, I cited it to show you that Stringer said a lot of things" if that is the truth why is it when you cited stringers testimony to bugliosi above you made no such claim what so ever ?. you cited it to assert that stringer said there was no wound in the back of the head and as my comments show he said otherwise you shot your self in the ass .now your backtracking ,beep beep beep im reversing here .
@fobrien1 ... sigh... Yes, fobrien, I am backtracking... Not for a second did I specifically state Stringer's comment to Bugliosi to demonstrate that Stringer said a lot of things to a lot of people, thereby severely diminishing his credibility.
@TennesseeOwnsMyBones and again i say no where in your original comment which is at the top of this page did you mention stringer said a lot of things which is diminishing his credibility ,you quoted his testimony as given to bugliosi specificly to assert that jfk had no large rear head wound . only when i posted stringers original words did you backtrack and decide stringer is unreliable ,ill repost your original comment after this one for people to see .
@TennesseeOwnsMyBones "Bugliosi: Was there any large defect to the rear of the president's head?
Stringer (the autopsy photographer): No. All there was was a small entrance wound to the back of the head. During the autopsy, Dr. Humes pointed out this entrance wound to everyone.
@TennesseeOwnsMyBones "Amazing... you take everyone and the kitchen sink as 'proof' where the wounds are concerned, save for the actual autopsy doctors... a-ma-zing..." and tell us is there anything in the 888 page warren report you dont agree with ?
@TennesseeOwnsMyBones if you can point to a comment of mine where i ever said the films taken on elm street were fake please do so .none of the 3 people you mentioned filmed the motorcade at a close enough range and without obstruction to be able to show a defect in the back of jfks head .but that said the blowup stills of latter frames of the z film appear to show a blowout on the right rear of the head ,however again there is not enough detail to be 100% certain .
@fobrien1 'Appear to show'... yes, and it appears to show there is a Martian spacecraft landing on the back of the limousine as well. Get over it. The evidence is there and has been since that dreadful day. Two shots struck JFK, one fatal, both fired from his rear. Case closed.
@TennesseeOwnsMyBones yes the blowup still frames does show what appeares to be a defect on the right rear of the head ,there is what i call a white spot and the hair appears to be reflected outwards towards the rear of the limo ,i say appears because i cant prove its a defect as the film doesnt show enough detail .unlike other people i wont say a thing is definite if im not sure it is and so i say it appears and i invite people to look at the frame for them selves .-------------
@TennesseeOwnsMyBones now your talking about martians ,as i said if im a crazy kook as you imply surely all the evidence is there to prove that what i say in my comments is wrong ,so if i am what you say and imply i am then im sure you can easily provide evidence to prove me wrong . it seems from the tone of your comments as if your really not wanting to indulge in a civil /adult /logical and intelligent debate and that all you want is to act childishly and name call and insult .
@fobrien1 True, I am very tired of CT-buffs who will cry for 'evidence' twenty-four seven, 365 days a year, yet have access to four different committee reports on the matter which all state the same: that JFK was hit from behind and from behind only. You are not interested in the evidence. I mean, even the autopsy reports - verified by all following committees - are 'suspect' to you. What do you want? Cite me one autopsy doctor who has stated that there was a huge defect in the back of the head.
@TennesseeOwnsMyBones im very interested in the evidence /testimony /affidavits and fbi reports etc which clearly can be seen by all by all reading these comments by the vast amount of testimony etc which i posted (you guys should try it ) ,no where in my comments do you see opinions or theories . now i wonder what people see when reading your comments ? .
@fobrien1 Sir, I could post the entire Autopsy Report, together with the findings of the four commissions that established its accuracy, and still you'd claim foul play.
@TennesseeOwnsMyBones and i can (and have ) post a list of witnesses who contradict the autopsy findings ,if the evidence wasnt contradicted by the witnesses we wouldnt be here, i didnt imagine all this or make all this stuff up as you would like people to believe .im not here to change your mind (that would be futile) im just here to post the evidence so people just learning about this case have all the facts good bad or indifferent .
@fobrien1 When have you ever posted the findings of the most qualified to make determination of death: the doctors who performed the autopsy? Never! When have you quoted the Warren Commission's and the three other commissions that concluded Kennedy was shot only from behind? Never! When have you quoted a witness that only saw the gaping hole to the front of Kennedy's head? Never! Your agenda could not be more clear. And for all to see, you lack any common sense!
@abennett4 again your still in your blinkered world never once did i assert that any witness i named was qualified to determin cause of death or if a wound was and entrance or exit so in this case you dont have an argument . never have i said the witnesses i mentioned tried to determin or assume the cause of death so again you have no argument . all im saying is that very credible and medicaly trained witnesses numbering between 30 and 40 all said there was a large wound on the right rear .
@abennett4 i think you will find ive quoted from the warren commiission and hsca many times ,ive quoted doctor humes saying (in relation to ce399 and the fragments supposedly from it "i cant concieve of where the fragments came from on that missile " and he wasnt the only one of the experts with that opinion and the wc failed to tell us that in their conclusions didnt they , i quoted the hsca lies telling us how all 26 autopsy witnesses contradicted the parklands staff ,didnt i ? .
@fobrien1 Yet you failed to mention that on later inspection, when confronted with the photographs, virtually all Parkland doctors accepted the findings of the Autopsy Report. You make it seem as if all Parkland doctors, to this day, categorically state there was a huge defect in the back of the head, when plenty of them have long since accepted the findings of the autopsy report and the commissions that studied it.
@TennesseeOwnsMyBones why would i need to mention some thing thats been mentioned by you guys on this and the other thread numerous times ? this is something thats not in dispute . yes some parkland staff were shown photos of the rear of the head and saw it was intact and so i guess then the only honest and reasonable reply to that was to say i must have been mistaken . however you neglect to mention anything about the attempts to authenticate the autopsy photos ---------------------------
@TennesseeOwnsMyBones "The photos were authenticated... by all commissions since the Warren commission"
well once again we can see that what we were told and what you guys still tell people is not quite accurate and not the full story .such was your haste to proclaim the photos authentic that you didnt even wait for me to finish typing my comment/s .
@TennesseeOwnsMyBones In support of its reconstruction of the murder evidence, the HSCA declared it had authenticated the autopsy photographs. However, the HSCA admitted that its authentication was not quite complete: "Because the Department of Defense was unable to locate the camera and lens that were used to take these [autopsy] photographs,the [photographic] panel was unable to engage in an analysis similar to the one undertaken with the Oswald backyard pictures-----------------------
@TennesseeOwnsMyBones that was designed to determine whether a particular camera in issue had been used to take the photographs that were the subject of inquiry."
In effect, the HSCA was saying that it was unhappy the original camera was unavailable to totally close the loop. Nevertheless, it expressed satisfaction the loop had been closed enough for confidence in the images because it had found features in the extant images that showed a kind of internal consistency one would find ---------
@TennesseeOwnsMyBones only in authentic images. Those consistencies essentially comprise virtually the entire HSCA case for "authentication." But there was an important part of the story the HSCA didn’t tell. Luckily, the JFK Review Board’s Doug Horne did tell it, after he excavated that part of the story from suppressed HSCA files. It is a rather different story than the one implied by the HSCA’s comment, "Because the Department of Defense was unable to locate the camera and lens --------------
@TennesseeOwnsMyBones that were used to take these [autopsy] photographs." Regarding that sentence, Horne wrote, "By late 1997, enough related documents had been located and assembled by the authors to bring into serious doubt the accuracy of the HSCA’s [statement]." It was not precisely true the Department of Defense had been unable to locate the camera used to take JFK’s autopsy photographs. ----------------------------
@TennesseeOwnsMyBones Apparently, the DoD had found the camera. The DoD wrote the HSCA that "the only [camera] in use at the National Naval Medical Center in 1963" had been sent to the HSCA for study. The HSCA, however, wasn’t pleased with the DoD’s camera. In a letter asking the Secretary of Defense to look for another one,HSCA chief counsel Robert Blakey explained the problem: "[O]ur photographic experts have determined that this camera, -----------------------
@TennesseeOwnsMyBones or at least the particular lens and shutter attached to it, could not have been used to take [JFK’s] autopsy pictures." Whereas the HSCA had publicly claimed the original autopsy camera could not be found, the suppressed record suggests that camera was found, and that it was tested. And it also found that it couldn’t be matched to Kennedy’s images. The HSCA staff elected not to share any of this information with the public nor its panel of forensic consultants.-----------
@TennesseeOwnsMyBones Horne reported that Kodak, which did work for the Review Board, found no evidence the current autopsy images had been falsified. And as Horne emphasized in his memo, the HSCA’s misstatement, as misleading as it is, may not be as sinister as it seems at first blush. The type of camera used was a "view" camera. It had a flat, square back that houses the double-sided film packs, and an attached bellows.-----------------------------------------------------
@TennesseeOwnsMyBones Attached to the front of the bellows are an interchangeable lens and a shutter mechanism, which may be switched out for different tasks. The lens and shutter used in 1963 may have been replaced by the time the DoD fetched the camera for the HSCA in 1977.And so a different lens or shutter might explain why the camera didn’t match JFK’s photographs. But unfortunately, there is no certainty that a different lens and shutter do explain the mismatch.--------------------
@TennesseeOwnsMyBones Horne searched through the files for the tests the HSCA conducted that proved a mismatch, but could find none. He also searched for the camera, and reported it has vanished. So while Horne was unable to confirm an innocent explanation for the mismatch, he was unable to exclude the obvious, sinister explanation: photo tampering.The Kodak finding that the extant images reveal no tampering proves that the extant images themselves have no internal inconsistencies-----------
@TennesseeOwnsMyBones that would prove tampering. It cannot, however, prove that no images are missing, which, evidence suggests, may well be the case. Nor can it disprove that a different camera than had been supposed took the images. Nor, even, can it disprove another possibility: that the current inventory is an entirely separate set of internally consistent images, but a different one than the one that may have originally existed.
@fobrien1 *Eveywhere* in your comments are opinions and theories. They are very transparent. You look at every piece of evidence against Oswald with an overtly biased critical view. Your agenda is clear for all to see. No common sense!
@abennett4 if i posted an opinion and asserted its a fact im sure you can point to the comment in question , and your well aware i dont have a theory or theories as some people do i just stick with the evidence but again if ive posted a theory of mine im sure you can point to the comment in question . "no common sense " well im very happy to let people reading decide which of us has debated with common sense /knowledge and intelligence .
@TennesseeOwnsMyBones yes i have posted no theories what so ever . never once have i claimed such a thing if it is your claim that i have then i feel compelled to ask you to point out the comment in which i said such a thing .is it your intent now to falsely attribute comments to me which i never made ? as that very much seems the case with your last comment .
@TennesseeOwnsMyBones well then tell all the people reading what you believe my theory is `? (which again for the record ive never mentioned even once ) ,i guess this means you have a theory about a conspiracy theory doesnt it .
@fobrien1 If the evidence has been a) tampered with or b) covered-up, that leads to the question: by whom, and why? There's your theory. Someone or something wanted to 'hide the truth'. Makes for great bedtime reading, true, but it gets very old when factually debating the Kennedy assassination.
@TennesseeOwnsMyBones well a simple example of covering up can be seen by the HSCA saying that all the autopsy witnesses contradicted the parklands witnesses (and we know thats a blatant lie ) a lot of this testimony was omited from the HSCAs report . if the ARRB didnt release a lot of testimony we wouldnt have known about this syuff even to day . if you dont see any thing wrong with all this i really dont know what else to say to you .
@fobrien1 Well, as there are inconsistencies, and they are so obvious, and they are the result of malintention, then presto: you are a conspiracy theorist.
@TennesseeOwnsMyBones when i see a blatant lie by the HSCA i call a spade a spade and i call it a blatant lie but it seems you see a blatant lie and call it an inconsistency ,when i see a blatant lie by bugliosi saying "oswald claimed he ate with jarmin" i call it a blatant lie i guess you would call it an error ,i guess that speaks vollumes for both of us .
"King has done a prodigious amount of research here... The depiction of Oswald and his family — his beautiful Russian wife, his overbearing mother — rings true, and Oswald’s motivation becomes clear: He’s an angry, twisted man determined to be “great.”" - From The Washington Post's review of Stephen King's novel "11/22/63". Due out 11/8/11!
@abennett4 It is clear that Stephen King has come to the same conclusion that any serious researcher of the Kennedy assassination has: Oswald killed Kennedy and he acted alone!
Back and to the left.....a shot from behind would have sent him forward....you see Jackie....she is reaching to the boot of the car to pick up his brains...you need to look at film from the day...not some computer crap..!!!
@bmthman42 Actually, Kennedy's DOES lurch forward at the precise moment of impact, between frames 312 (before impact) & frame 313 (just after impact). It moves VIOLENTLY forward, but only briefly - in less than 1/18th of a second. The back-and-to-the-left motion occurs after the bullet is long gone. In all likelihood, it's a neurological reaction from severe/sudden brain trauma.
They did an autopsy on Kennedy. It was determined that he was shot from BEHIND.
@davidemerling "They did an autopsy on Kennedy. It was determined that he was shot from BEHIND.
THOSE are the facts!"
we were told that saddam hussien had weapons of mass destrucion and we know as FACT he didnt ,so when people are told things are facts especially in this case that isnt always the case . and jfks wounds and their locations are no exception .
@fobrien1 Are you saying the photos and x-rays - along with the autopsy report itself is all a fabrication - all done with the cooperation of the THREE doctors and the many onlookers were in the Bethesda morgue, two of which were FBI agents?
@davidemerling im saying what we were told and what some people still tell us are facts may not be as factual as we were told . case in point you tell people "They did an autopsy on Kennedy. It was determined that he was shot from BEHIND.THOSE are the facts! " now that may well be what the warren and hsca report says but you and the hsca omit the important FACT that a very large amount of people including those at the autopsy said jfk had a large wound on the back of the head ----------
@fobrien1 So you think the doctors LIED about there NOT being a large hole in the back of the head while others were in the room plainly seeing such a hole? Ridiculous! Photographs and x-rays support the findings of the autopsy report and CONTRADICT those who believe that there was a huge hole back there - implying that it was an exit wound. And yet, we can PLAINLY see that there is a gaping in hole in the right/front of the president's head. Do you think there were TWO holes?
@davidemerling have the autopsy photos been authenticated using the autopsy camera ? .
did the doctors lie well going by all the very credible and medicaly trained witnesses who contradicted them to any reasonable and intelligent person that would seem logical wouldnt it . i ask again if all is as you and the hsca said why did the hsca feel the need to lie and say all of the autopsy witnesses contradicted parklands witnesses which was untrue and a blatant lie ? .
@fobrien1 I encouraged everybody who has ever pondered this crap that is fed to them via conspiracy books on the issue of OTHER doctors (at Parkland) contradicting the finding of the Bethesda autopsy - READ the Warren Commission testimony of the Parkland doctors and tell me that they sound like doctors who examined the body and were confident with their findings. Then balance that with THREE doctors doing an autopsy that took HOURS. This is where common sense comes in.
@davidemerling if autopsy witnesses etc hadnt contradicted the autopsy findings and hadnt said pretty much the same as the parklands staff said you might have an argument ,but the fact is autopsy witnesses etc did not contradict the parklands witnesses at all. but of course they are all mistaken or liars and were crazy kooks for believeing them because we just cant accept that dumb oswald could kill jfk .
@fobrien1 Let's do it THIS way - you name the autopsy witness who contradicted the THREE DOCTORS who conducted the autopsy. My guess is you have people like enlisted technicians, photographers, and your liberal interpretation of statements made by medically UNQUALIFIED people - like FBI notes. See - THIS is the difference between the common sense involved in resolving conflicting statements. You go with second grade witnesses and I go with the actually AUTOPSY DOCTORS.
@davidemerling you have no need to guess david as your fully aware that i posted a list of witnesses and what they saw . firstly its not just a photographer as you well know its the autopsy photographer (let me guess he wasnt a qualified patholagist so he couldnt possibly be expected to know if he is looking at at the back of someones head or the front right ?) ,secondly i interpreted nothing liberaly or otherwise and your well aware of the fact i posted the witnesses own words.
@fobrien1 Yes, I'm aware who your likely "witnesses" would be. That's why I asked the question. I can understand your reluctance to enumerate them. I've read all that crap. The bottom line is I have AUTOPSY DOCTORS and you don't.
It took him 6 seconds to fire three shots with his shitty rifle guys the first shit pushed him back so obviously the shot come in front of the car by a fence its quite sad how this country runs dont like it all government killing americans just to make money fucked up but thats the world
tweak1237 4 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Between the second and third shots, for about 4 seconds LHO reloaded his rifle again, finds the moving target is shooting back. Unable to make these moves and hit a target of just over 15 cm in size and 90 meters 25kmp / h movement. This procedure is impossible.
joaoisobr 5 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Who Killed JFK??
Israel & Mossad Assassinated JFK w/ orders from Israel PM David Ben-Gurion. JFK wanted to inspect how Israel ILLEGALLY got Nuclear weapons & nuclear power, how many & from where.
john-f-kennedy. net/mossadandtheassassination.htm
afrocubaweb. com/news/mossadjfk.htm
nogw. com/download/mossadandtheassassination.pdf
scribd. com/doc/8298527/Final-Judgment-Mossad-and-the-JFK-Assasination
wrmea. com/backissues/0392/9203026.html
criminalstate. com/2009/10/at-what-cost-the-israel-lobby
halcyon0830 1 week ago
Israeli Mossad and CIA killed JFK
JFK Opposed Nukes for Israel.
JFK tried to introduce Interest free money AND deescalate Vietnam.
With him Dead, ALL 3 of these policies were Reversed by Zionist LBJ.
Zapruder (Jew) 'caught' the film and Jack 'Ruby' Rubenstein (Jew) was the Patsy.
Michael Collins Piper wrote a Bestseller Now banned called FINAL JUDGMENT which indicts Israel for his assassination.
'By Way Of Deception, Thu Shall Do War' -Mossad Motto
StSimonMartyr 1 week ago
Ok thagirl23 lee harvey ozwalt was clearly the one who did it. he confessed.
tman8079 2 weeks ago
@tman8079 No, he did NOT confess.
davidemerling 2 weeks ago 2
@davidemerling Correct, he claimed that he was framed by the real killers.
FANJG24 1 week ago
@FANJG24 If you're referring to Oswald's comment, "I'm just a patsy!" - what he REALLY said, in response to the question, "Did you shoot the president?" was this:
"They've taken me in because of the fact that I lived in the Soviet Union. I'm just a patsy!"
Oswald was showboating for the press. Oswald knew good & well WHY they "took him in" - it was for killing a police officer, NOT because he lived in the Soviet Union. Oswald made many self-serving statements to the press during that weekend.
davidemerling 1 week ago
Ok let me just get this straight, nobody knows for sure that Oswald was the one that did it, but i can understand the panic of the people around all this mess and all the anger! but shooting oswald and not beeing sure if he was the one. that is so sad! but then again attentionhoe!!!
ThaGirl23 4 weeks ago
I understand that oswald was a trained Marine Corp rifleman. these guy are top notch, how could he not first clear his down range field of vision, we were taught this repeatedly!
Bigdaddon 1 month ago
@Bigdaddon I imagine there was a lot of stuff Oswald didn't think through all the way. It's hard to expect completely rational behavior from an individual who committing one of the most irrational acts imaginable. Oswald's "escape plan" was not exactly well thought out, as well. In fact, he's extremely lucky it went as well as it did. Essentially, he was "captured" within 90 seconds of firing the last shot.
davidemerling 1 month ago
hi guys i just want to wish all a very merry christmas ,have a good one ,talk soon guys .
fobrien1 1 month ago
Is it true that when he was shot in the head that Jackie Kennedy went back their to grab a peace of his brain
Mattheweueu 1 month ago
@Mattheweueu yes ,she had the piece of skull in her hand at parklands where i believe she gave it to one of the doctors .
fobrien1 1 month ago
@Mattheweueu Viewing the Zapruder film, it certainly DOES appear as if Jackie is grabbing something off the back of the limo. Of course, when questioned, Jackie had no recollection that she even got out of her seat like that. From testimony of Parkland doctors/nurses, Jackie had some brain matter in her hand while they were all in the trauma room. So, it appears the answer is YES to your question. But it's possible Jackie got the brain matter while JFK was in the limo.
davidemerling 1 month ago
The notion that shots came from the Snipers Nest is one of the basic tenets of the WC and is mostly accepted as fact but it is strange that so little actual evidence exists that supports this. If one looks at the other side of the argument, the first question is why was the rifle not hidden better? Lee worked in that building, I am sure he could have devised a way to quickly hide it inside one of the stacks of boxes that would have taken hours to find,
conspiracydog11 1 month ago in playlist Favorite videos
If you thnk the kill shot came from the book depsoitory you should stop uploadeing videos because you have no perception of reality. The kill shot that took off the front right part of his forehead came from in front of him, somewhere like the railway tracks behind the grassy knoll. Watch the Zapruda tape at the 23 second mark and watch his head vapurize. There is not a snowballs chance in hell that shot was fired from behind him. Get a clue in the future.
MrAkamkk 1 month ago
there was 3 gun shot wounds on kennedy? 2 without exit wounds. plus the missed shot plus!! the teague shot plus!!! the johnson shot!
bigjoemcCOY 1 month ago
that was strange.. they said everyone heard the first shot but why didn't kennedy bug down really fast when he actually the first shot??
ArcherJester18 1 month ago
Comment removed
Rtmax45 1 month ago in playlist elvis etc
Comment removed
Rtmax45 1 month ago in playlist elvis etc
Although this is plausible I still refuse to beleive that the third shot, the head shot, came from behind Kennedy. In the Zapruder film Keneddy's head went back and to the left, you don't take a hit from a bullet into the head and move towards it, you move away from it. This is just basic logic
billabongzilla 1 month ago
@billabongzilla With all due respect your basic logic is flawed. A bullet going through an object does not have the mass neccessary to cause much motion at all in either direction. JFK's (forward then) backward head motion was a neuromuscular response. Further, the spray of brain matter to JFK's front is consistent with an exit wound in the front, ergo an entry wound in the rear. The fatal shot, therefore, had to have come from behind him. . . .I still have a hard time believing LHO acted alone.
tarhen12 1 month ago
what about James Tague who received a minor wound on his right cheek during the assassination
Qwerty95ktv 1 month ago
Somebody, ANYBODY, please explain to me why if Oswald was the lone gunman firing from the Book depository, why on Earth would he wait until the motorcade was driving away from him with obsticles (trees) blocking a clear view when he could have shot Kennedy at a much closer range with NO obstructions on N.Houston st. before the motorcade turned left on Elm st. I'm not saying no shots were fired from the 6th floor, the fatal shot came from the Knoll and there were more than 1 assassin.
massuerb 1 month ago
@massuerb The shots were still easy as the limousine was westbound in Elm. Also, he had a much better chance of going unnoticed if most of the DPD and Secret Service had their backs to him. If he shot while they were all facing him - he would have probably NEVER gotten the opportunity to shoot THREE times. And, as it turned out, his choice has been vindicated by the fact that very few saw him, he got 3 shots, and he was able to escape.
davidemerling 1 month ago
@davidemerling Like Querty95ktv asked...What about james tague???? When did Mr Oswald fire the shot that hit and shattered the curb 400 feet down elm????
migo53333 1 month ago
@migo53333 In all likelihood, the BEST explanation is that Tague was "injured" by the first, missed shot which was either deflected off a tree branch or hit the street and caused pieces to be deflected down range.
davidemerling 1 month ago
Comment removed
Rtmax45 1 month ago
@massuerb because it was a crossfire zone halfway down elm......witnesses have stated that they observed a man standing in that window looking down towards the overpasss, not up houston street where the car was coming from.....hmmmm.....
migo53333 1 month ago
@massuerb An 88 yard head shot is not easy. And I think there was a good bit of a wind blowing that day which would complicated things even more. It seems to me that to pass up the Houston shot proves other shooters in other locations.
conspiracydog11 1 month ago
@massuerb Actually, this is one of the really good arguments for a conspiracy. From looking at the SS reenactment one can see just how easy in comparison the Houston shot was. A screen of boxes could have been placed for concealment from the street leaving just a small gap for the weapon. No one could have know where the shots were coming from. And if it was not going to be a head on shot why did the shooter not go to the other end of the floor?
conspiracydog11 1 month ago
@massuerb Because (if you haven't had advanced sharpshooter training, you wouldn't know this) as Kennedy is pulling away, his relative motion in the scope is rapidly decreasing. Kennedy was picked off at the perfect point in his motorcade move. If he'd shot closer, it'd have been harder to hit him. Play Halo more, and you'll see the effect against a moving target. Very hard to shoot something moving really close by with a sniper scope.
bcfsl 1 month ago
It seems the mad spammer is at it again. I'm getting rather tired of going through posts and un-spamming them. I wish YouTube would allow the OWNER of the site to disable that feature. *I* would rather be the one to determine what is and isn't spam. NONE of what I can see qualifies as spam. I might not agree with the post - but it's topical. Please stop it whoever you are. It's childish and it is CLEARLY a regular visitor who is doing this.
davidemerling 2 months ago
Comment removed
Rtmax45 2 months ago
Comment removed
Rtmax45 2 months ago
@Rtmax45 Ironically, the 1st shot (the closest) was probably one of the most difficult of the 3 shots. Oswald had to deal with 1) Relatively rapid tracking rates, 2) obstructions and 3) an awkwardly steep, downward angle. In fact, it may have been so steep that it precluded him resting the rifle on the box at all. Another factor is NERVES. The tension must have been building to quite a high level. Once the trigger is pulled, the tension is released and it becomes easier to take subsequent shots.
davidemerling 2 months ago
Comment removed
Rtmax45 1 month ago
@fobrien1 That's CTs for you. Everything is a conspiracy.
abennett4 2 months ago
"here was a dangerous fame-junkie who found himself in just the right place to get lucky" - Stephen King, '11/22/63', page 845
abennett4 2 months ago
And extremely simple to prove the conspiracy. Between the second and third shots, LHO had to reload the weapon, find the head of JFK and shoot again, the time marked on the video zapruther between the second and third shots are 4 sec in the video is a tangible evidence. Doing this maneuver is acether as the lottery. It is impossible to a 24 year old kid can do it. He missed the first shot to 20 feet without having to maneuver the weapon.
joaoisobr 2 months ago
Can't believe it's been 48 years ago today that JFK was assassinated. I was in kindergarten & remember watching the coffin being taken off the plane in DC & my dad on the couch crying, but I was too young to understand what had happened. I read Dr. Charles Crenshaw's 1991 book "Conspiracy of Silence." He was one of the doctors at Parkland in the ER that day & said that Kennedy's neck wound was an entrance wound, meaning at least one of the shots came fom the front. Read it!
wlhardy 2 months ago
To see where the third fatal shot to JFK was fired from, based on ignored physical evidence, watch the following short Youtube video:
"JFK Assassination: The Other Magic Bullet"
AidanMonaghan 2 months ago
Plausible pile is the best way to describe this farce. Notice how the camera simulation would be and is perfectly still like on a track. No human in our history could duplicate that impossible feat.
When they framed Oswald they should have had him down behind the fence, holding a semiautmatic rifle in his hands, DEAD, as the dallas police stood around his lifeless corpse. The story that they chose made it look like they thought of the cover story as though they didnt know if it happen.
frogshair2 2 months ago
The Zionism Masons killed him cuz he didn't make wars with ppl as they wished
الصهيونية الماسونية قتلته لأنه لم يرد أن يقوم بحروب مع العالم كما أرادوا
withyou4ever0 2 months ago
I think that Oswald wanted to appear like an accident , that's my opinion ...
iulixD 2 months ago
@iulixD being shot at 3 times, how could that be posed as an accident
dmoe151 2 months ago
@dmoe151 Maybe because he missed the "accident" and then he decided to kill him
iulixD 2 months ago
16. "After the shooting in Dealey Plaza, nearly all sixteen warehousemen who worked in the Depository Building returned to the building and were present at a roll call of employees. Only Lee Harvey Oswald and Charles Givens were not present. Givens was located shortly thereafter. So only Oswald left the building and was unaccounted for." Vincent Bugliosi, Reclaiming History
abennett4 2 months ago
"15.Though Oswald was probably more politically oriented than all 13 other warehousemen at the Book Depository put together, if we are to believe Oswald’s story, he apparently was the only one who had no interest at all in watching the presidential motorcade go by, either from out on the street or from a window, claiming in one version that he was having lunch on the 1st floor of the Book Depository at the time of the shooting, and in another version that he was working on the sixth floor..."
abennett4 2 months ago
@abennett4 " if we are to believe Oswald’s story, he apparently was the only one who had no interest at all in watching the presidential motorcade go by" jack ruby the man who weeped for his dead president and who killed oswald to spare jfks widow having to testify at a trial didnt bother watching the motorcade either even tho he was just 3 blocks away .
fobrien1 2 months ago
... Indeed, Oswald the political animal, was so uninterested in the fact that the most powerful politician on earth had been shot that he had no inclination to stick around for a few minutes and engage in conversation with his coworkers about the sensational and tragic event. Does that make any sense?" Vincent Bugliosi, Reclaiming History
abennett4 2 months ago
14. There is yet another reason why Oswald’s statement that he was on the first floor eating lunch at the time of the shooting makes no sense at all. If he had been, once he heard the shots and the screaming and all the commotion outside, if he were innocent, what is the likelihood that he would have proceeded to go, as he claims, up to the second floor to get himself a Coke? How could any sensible person believe a story like that?" Vincent Bugliosi, Reclaiming History
abennett4 2 months ago
@abennett4 He could have already been on the second floor,or was on the stairs at the time the shooting took place.
MrKUBRICKIAN 2 months ago
@MrKUBRICKIAN The investigators did detailed reconstruction of the assassins movements and Oswald had plenty of time (didn't even need to rush) to reach his encounter with Trully and Officer Baker.
abennett4 2 months ago
@abennett4 Wrong,the fbi man howlett,never put the rifle in the position it was found.Also,baker in his re-enactment,jogged,instead of sprinting to the building.This was backed up in the actual film showing baker running to the doorway of the building.
MrKUBRICKIAN 2 months ago
@MrKUBRICKIAN It really is a moot point as the HSCA estimate of Oswald's trip was as much as 45 seconds faster than the Warren Commission's estimate of the Baker encounter. Also, the only evidence of Baker "sprinting" is an about 10-second video. We can not assume how fast and what obstacles he encountered the rest of the time or how long it took him to even start toward the building.
abennett4 2 months ago
@abennett4 Baker said he started toward the building as soon as he heard the final shot.He also said that he and truly got to the second floor,less than a minute after the final shot.
MrKUBRICKIAN 2 months ago
@MrKUBRICKIAN Well the estimate by experienceed investigors put Baker getting there between 60 and 90 second. Again, it does not really matter since the HSCA has Oswald getting there in 45 seconds.
abennett4 2 months ago
@abennett4 Which is ridiculous,to make it in that time it would have been impossible for him not to be out of breath.
MrKUBRICKIAN 2 months ago
@MrKUBRICKIAN Baker gave a few conflicting times. The fact of the matter is that Baker didn't hit a stopwatch. That was the last thing on his mind. The best he could do is give an estimate. The best we can do is gather what we can from videos and photos - piece it together - run some reenactments to establish some reasonable times - and determine whether a Truly/Oswald encounter on the 2nd floor was possible. The answer is a resounding - YES!
davidemerling 2 months ago
@davidemerling The answer isn't a resounding yes,the f.b.i re-enactment was a travesty.Baker sprinted to the doorway(as confirmed by actual footage),he didn't jog as he did in the re-enactment.
MrKUBRICKIAN 1 month ago
@abennett4 The bee in the bonnet for that scenario is Victoria Adams.
conspiracydog11 1 month ago
"the porch where, in September of 1963, Lee Oswald would sit in his underwear after dark, whispering "Pow! Pow! Pow!" under his breath and dry-firing what was going to become the most famous rifle in American history at passing pedestrians." Stephen King, '11/22/63', ppage 288
abennett4 2 months ago
13. "Although in his interrogation on Friday afternoon Oswald said he was having lunch on the 1st floor of the Book Depository at the time of the assassination, during Sunday’s interrogation Oswald slipped up and placed himself on the 6th floor at the time of the assassination, making him the only employee of the Book Depository who placed himself on the 6th floor, or was placed there by anyone else, at the time we know an assassin shot Kennedy from the 6th floor." V Bugliosi, Reclaiming History
abennett4 2 months ago
@abennett4 another interesting bit of slight of hand by bugliosi , bugliosi gleaned this piece of information from page 636 of the warren report which he makes refference to in his book as opposed to the actuall interrogation notes which mention nothing not one word about oswald saying he was on the 6th floor AT THE TIME of the assassination which was 12.30 . what bugliosi is talking about is a refference in notes taken by harry holmes at oswalds last interrogation on sunday--------------------
fobrien1 2 months ago
@fobrien1 That's what Bugliosi said "during Sunday’s interrogation Oswald slipped up and placed himself on the 6th floor at the time of the assassination, "
abennett4 2 months ago
@abennett4 "That's what Bugliosi said "during Sunday’s interrogation Oswald slipped up and placed himself on the 6th floor at the time of the assassination, "
that maybe what bugliosi said but its inaccurate ,that you didnt even attempt to dispute what i said speaks vollumes ,i can see why your comment was flagged as spam .
fobrien1 2 months ago
@abennett4 see commission exhibit 2064 page 491 . holmes in his notes says "when asked as to his whereabouts at the time of the shooting ,he stated that when lunch time came ,and he didnt say which floor he was on ,he said one of the negro employees invited him to eat lunch with him and he stated ,you go on down and send the elevator back up and i will join you in a few minutes ,before he could finish whatever he was doing ,he stated ,------------------------------------------------------
fobrien1 2 months ago
@abennett4 the commotion surounding the assassination took place and when he went downstairs ,a policeman questioned him as to his identification and his boss stated that ,he is one of our employees ,.
now the problems with holmes notes should be quite obvious ,firstly look at the line "he stated that when lunch time came ,and he didnt say which floor he was on " when the workers went to lunch it was about 11.40 to 11.45 and not 12.30 which was the time of the shooting -------------------------
fobrien1 2 months ago
@abennett4 the second problem is in this line "before he could finish whatever he was doing ,he stated the commotion surounding the assassination took place and when he went downstairs ,a policeman questioned him as to his identification and his boss stated that ,he is one of our employees"
the problem here should be obvious the time the workers went to lunch was 11.40 to 11.45 and officer baker wouldnt arrive for atleast 45 minutes more ---------------------------------
fobrien1 2 months ago
@abennett4 so baker couldnt have stopped oswald as he was attempting to go down to lunch . again we see bugliosi chooses to use clearly inaccurate and misleading notes instead of using bookhouts very clear notes or fritz notes in a very shoddy attempt to falsely assert that oswald said he was on the 6th floor at 12.30 the time of the assassination ,from the notes i posted we see that oswald was talking about lunchtime 11.40 to 11.45 not 12.30 . --------------------------------------
fobrien1 2 months ago
@abennett4 we allready saw bugliosi as quoted by abennett saying "oswald claimed he ate with jarmin "(in the hope of getting an alibi) and that was shown not only to be inaccurate but to be completely untrue ,he had fritz and bookhouts notes which he ignores and he used a piece of fritz wc testimony where he says oswald said he ate with two of the black employees ,fritz testifying from memory made a mistake we know this because fritz is completely contradicted by his own notes .
fobrien1 2 months ago
"12. Apart from Brennan, we know that Kennedy's assassin was at the subject 6th-floor window. Among other evidence, the rifle that was used to murder Kennedy was found on the sixth-floor of the Book Depository Building, witnesses other than Brennan saw a rifle sticking out of the southeasternmost window on the 6th floor, a sniper's nest was found around the subject window, nd three cartridge casings from the murder weapon was found on the sixth floor beneath the window." V.B., Reclaiming History
abennett4 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
11. "After the first and second shots rang out, a motorcade witness, Howard Brennan, sitting on a short concret wall directly across the street from the sixth-floor window, looked up and actually saw Oswald in the window holding his rifle. Only 120 feet away from Oswald, he got a very good look as he watched, in horror, Oswald (whom he had seen in the window earlier, before the motorcade had arrived) take diliberate aim and fire the final shot from his rifle." V. Bugliosi, Reclaiming History
abennett4 2 months ago
@abennett4 "11. "After the first and second shots rang out, a motorcade witness, Howard Brennan, sitting on a short concret wall directly across the street from the sixth-floor window, looked up and actually saw Oswald in the window holding his rifle. Only 120 feet away from Oswald, he got a very good look as he watched, in horror,"
and yet he said he couldnt identify the man he saw and the commission decided not to base their findings on brennans testimony .
fobrien1 2 months ago
@abennett4 Howard Brennan, the welder with telescopic vision. These days we know what welding can do to eyesight. Anyway he was a "shining star" for the WC. He described the shooter down to the colour of his drawers but refused to go into the building to show where the shooter was and failed to id Lee Oswald in a lineup, but did recognize one of the Dallas Police. I think he was a frustrated psychologist in another life.
conspiracydog11 1 month ago
@conspiracydog11 Hey, Brennan just happened to point out the window where *later* they found Oswald's sniper's nest. What more do you want?
abennett4 1 month ago
@abennett4 3) Though claiming he saw two people at a 5th-floor window of the TSBD, he was unable to recognize them when they were introduced to him, and to say at which window these two men were standing.
"To my amazement the man still stood there in the window! He didn't appear to be rushed. There was no particular emotion visible on his face except for a slight smirk."
The HSCA totally ignored Brennan. I can see why.
conspiracydog11 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
10. "Desite the fact that the president's visit and route received enormous and inescapable attention in the Dallas papers and on radio and TV, and that Oswald usually read both daily newspapers each day and had to know what was happening, he asked coworker James Jarman somewhere between 9.30 and 10.00 on the morning of the assassination why ppeople were gathering around the corner of Houston and Elm." Vincent Bugliosi, Reclaiming History
abennett4 2 months ago
@abennett4 well finally bugliosi says some thing which has a basis in fact ,yes oswald asked jarmin why all the people were standing around outside . however he again omits some important information ,for instance oswald when at his rooming house stayed in his room more often than not and so he watched little or no tv there and he only went home 4 days in 6 weeks so he cant have seen much tv at the paines .and the paper he would read in work was usually atleast a day old .
fobrien1 2 months ago
this video is wrong cause hes head goes behind when he got shot so he was shootit by front!!
0abelino 2 months ago
miss when the driver shoot at president
nilssongabriel 2 months ago
Everyone should pick up a copy of Stephen King's '11/2/63'. He really nails Oswald! Oswald is portrayed as a controlling and abusive husband constantly beating Marina and telling her to "Pokhoda, cyka" ("Walk, bitch"). He is described as "Just a skinny little wife-aboser waiting to be famous." page 65
abennett4 2 months ago
@abennett4 that's "wife-abuser"!
abennett4 2 months ago
9. "Every morning after arriving for work at the Book Depository Building, Oswald would go to the domino room on the first floor of the building and read the previous morning's edition of the Dallas Morning News, which another employee had brought in. On the morning of the assassination, for the first time, he did not do this." Vincent Bugliosi, Reclaiming History
abennett4 2 months ago
Bugliosi: Was there any large defect to the rear of the president's head?
Stringer (the autopsy photographer): No. All there was was a small entrance wound to the back of the head. During the autopsy, Dr. Humes pointed out this entrance wound to everyone.
Reclaiming History, p. 410.
TennesseeOwnsMyBones 2 months ago
@TennesseeOwnsMyBones i guess stringer forgot to tell bugliosi what he said about the head wound previously and i dare say bugliosi (who with 21 years of research had to know all about ) didnt ask him about that either . so lets see what stringer said about the head wound shall we .
fobrien1 2 months ago
@TennesseeOwnsMyBones Lifton: "When you lifted him out, was the main damage to the skull on the top or in the back?" Stringer: "In the back." Lifton: "In the back?...High in the back or lower in the back?" Stringer: "In the occipital part, in the back there, up above the neck."
Lifton: "In other words, the main part of his head that was blasted away was in the occipital part of the skull?" Stringer: "Yes. In the back part."
fobrien1 2 months ago
@fobrien1 Lifton... the guy who wrote a book about bodies being snatched... bro, plz...
TennesseeOwnsMyBones 2 months ago
@TennesseeOwnsMyBones Lifton: "The back portion. Okay. In other words, there was no five-inch hole in the top of the skull?" Stringer: "Oh, some of it was blown off--yes, I mean, toward, out of the top in the back, yes." Lifton: "Top in the back. But the top in the front was pretty intact?" Stringer: "Yes, sure." Lifton: "The top front was intact?"
Stringer: "Right."
fobrien1 2 months ago
@TennesseeOwnsMyBones Lifton, unsatisfied with precisely what Stringer may have meant by the 'back of the head' asked, as he had asked McHugh, if by "back of the head" Stringer meant the portion of the head that rests on the rear portion of a bathtub during bathing. Stringer replied, "Yes."--as had McHugh (BE, p.516)
(now why didnt he tell vinnie that ? i guess it slipped his mind .)
""There's no hole in the back of the head there; is there?" (John Stringer, ARRB Deposition)"
fobrien1 2 months ago
@fobrien1 No, it meant Stringer said a whole lot of things. And none of it matched the autopsy verdict save for the comment he made to Buglisoi.
TennesseeOwnsMyBones 2 months ago
@TennesseeOwnsMyBones so in your mind if some thing doesnt match the official version you were told your saying that by definition it is a lie ? stringer not only told lifton about the back of the head he was recorded saying it and he was quite clear in pointing out the position of the head wound . i guess stringer forgot all about that when he was being questioned by bugliosi .
fobrien1 2 months ago
@fobrien1 stringer: yeah
lifton: that part ?
stringer : mmhmm
lifton :back in the part that would rest against the tile in the bathtub ?
stringer :mmhmm
fobrien1 2 months ago
@fobrien1 I wasn't 'told' by anyone. I researched it myself. And yes, Dave Lifton's theory probably ranks as the most grotesquely insane... possibly even worse than the 'Hickey accidentally shot JFK'-theory fostered by Menninger.
TennesseeOwnsMyBones 2 months ago
@TennesseeOwnsMyBones you seem to want to link some theory with me (if i posted a comment with some theory im happy for you to point it out to me but i wont hold my breath ) and also you seem to want to say that this theory in some way changes what stringer or another witness said . presumably you deny stringer said any such thing or that lifton made him swallow some angle dust or some thing to make him say these things .
fobrien1 2 months ago
@fobrien1 No... what I say is that Stringer said a lot of things... and contradicted himself plenty. Furthermore, you probably didn't see that the Parkland doctors who spoke of a 'wound to the back' later admitted that their perception was off, and that they fully support the autopsy findings.
TennesseeOwnsMyBones 2 months ago
@TennesseeOwnsMyBones "No... what I say is that Stringer said a lot of things... and contradicted himself plenty"
and once again no where in your original comment that i reposted did you mention even once that you thought stringer was unreliable ,you quoted stringers testimony to bugliosi simply to assert that there was no large hole in the rear of the head .so you find stringer reliable when he says what you want to hear and unreliable the rest of the time .
fobrien1 2 months ago
@fobrien1 As someone who has read all of Bugliosi's voluminous book, it is EXACTLY why I quoted it, as Bugliosi says the same thing: Stringer said a LOT of things. You don't think Bugliosi tackled this issue???
TennesseeOwnsMyBones 2 months ago
@TennesseeOwnsMyBones again its clear to all you quoted stringers testimony to bugliosi because he said there was no large wound and for no other reason ,no where in your original quote did you mention even once you thought stringer was unreliable . just to add the trial you quote from had no basis in law what so ever it was a mock trial for a tv audience.
fobrien1 2 months ago
@fobrien1 It was not in the trial. It was in the book.. where Bugliosi points out that Stringer said a lot of things, to a lot of people. THAT was the point.
TennesseeOwnsMyBones 2 months ago
@TennesseeOwnsMyBones im sorry realize its from the book but i thought it was a piece of stringers testimony from the mock trial as that is how it appears .
fobrien1 2 months ago
@TennesseeOwnsMyBones
lifton:i see i see let me ask you another way of stating that .and this is a good way of stating what i asked you before .if you lie back in a bathtub you know just in a totally prone position and you and your head rests against the bathtub is that the part of the head you know ,is that the part of the head that was damaged ?.
fobrien1 2 months ago
@fobrien1 Amazing... you take everyone and the kitchen sink as 'proof' where the wounds are concerned, save for the actual autopsy doctors... a-ma-zing...
TennesseeOwnsMyBones 2 months ago
@TennesseeOwnsMyBones you cited stringers testimony to bugliosi above and now presumably your saying he is not reliable is that what your saying? ,he is reliable when saying what you want to hear but unreliable when he contradicts the official story . if you can prove stringer didnt say the words i posted prove it but of course you cant can you because you know he said it and not only that he was recorded saying it .
fobrien1 2 months ago
@fobrien1 No, I cited it to show you that Stringer said a lot of things. Contrary to the autopsy findings, which, on all occassions, state the same: two shots struck JFK from behind, no further entrance wounds were found, and the defect to Kennedy's head was mostly toward the top-right, streching to the parietal and occiptal bones. Ergo, no 'big hole' in the back of the head.
TennesseeOwnsMyBones 2 months ago
@TennesseeOwnsMyBones "No, I cited it to show you that Stringer said a lot of things" if that is the truth why is it when you cited stringers testimony to bugliosi above you made no such claim what so ever ?. you cited it to assert that stringer said there was no wound in the back of the head and as my comments show he said otherwise you shot your self in the ass .now your backtracking ,beep beep beep im reversing here .
fobrien1 2 months ago
@fobrien1 ... sigh... Yes, fobrien, I am backtracking... Not for a second did I specifically state Stringer's comment to Bugliosi to demonstrate that Stringer said a lot of things to a lot of people, thereby severely diminishing his credibility.
TennesseeOwnsMyBones 2 months ago
@TennesseeOwnsMyBones and again i say no where in your original comment which is at the top of this page did you mention stringer said a lot of things which is diminishing his credibility ,you quoted his testimony as given to bugliosi specificly to assert that jfk had no large rear head wound . only when i posted stringers original words did you backtrack and decide stringer is unreliable ,ill repost your original comment after this one for people to see .
fobrien1 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@TennesseeOwnsMyBones "Bugliosi: Was there any large defect to the rear of the president's head?
Stringer (the autopsy photographer): No. All there was was a small entrance wound to the back of the head. During the autopsy, Dr. Humes pointed out this entrance wound to everyone.
Reclaiming History, p. 410."
as posted by you verbatim .
fobrien1 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@TennesseeOwnsMyBones "Amazing... you take everyone and the kitchen sink as 'proof' where the wounds are concerned, save for the actual autopsy doctors... a-ma-zing..." and tell us is there anything in the 888 page warren report you dont agree with ?
fobrien1 2 months ago
@fobrien1 Finally... The Zapruder, Nix and Muchmore films... NONE of them show a gaping hole in the back of the head. Or are these all fake as well?
TennesseeOwnsMyBones 2 months ago
@TennesseeOwnsMyBones if you can point to a comment of mine where i ever said the films taken on elm street were fake please do so .none of the 3 people you mentioned filmed the motorcade at a close enough range and without obstruction to be able to show a defect in the back of jfks head .but that said the blowup stills of latter frames of the z film appear to show a blowout on the right rear of the head ,however again there is not enough detail to be 100% certain .
fobrien1 2 months ago
@fobrien1 'Appear to show'... yes, and it appears to show there is a Martian spacecraft landing on the back of the limousine as well. Get over it. The evidence is there and has been since that dreadful day. Two shots struck JFK, one fatal, both fired from his rear. Case closed.
TennesseeOwnsMyBones 2 months ago
@TennesseeOwnsMyBones yes the blowup still frames does show what appeares to be a defect on the right rear of the head ,there is what i call a white spot and the hair appears to be reflected outwards towards the rear of the limo ,i say appears because i cant prove its a defect as the film doesnt show enough detail .unlike other people i wont say a thing is definite if im not sure it is and so i say it appears and i invite people to look at the frame for them selves .-------------
fobrien1 2 months ago
@TennesseeOwnsMyBones now your talking about martians ,as i said if im a crazy kook as you imply surely all the evidence is there to prove that what i say in my comments is wrong ,so if i am what you say and imply i am then im sure you can easily provide evidence to prove me wrong . it seems from the tone of your comments as if your really not wanting to indulge in a civil /adult /logical and intelligent debate and that all you want is to act childishly and name call and insult .
fobrien1 2 months ago
@fobrien1 True, I am very tired of CT-buffs who will cry for 'evidence' twenty-four seven, 365 days a year, yet have access to four different committee reports on the matter which all state the same: that JFK was hit from behind and from behind only. You are not interested in the evidence. I mean, even the autopsy reports - verified by all following committees - are 'suspect' to you. What do you want? Cite me one autopsy doctor who has stated that there was a huge defect in the back of the head.
TennesseeOwnsMyBones 2 months ago
@TennesseeOwnsMyBones im very interested in the evidence /testimony /affidavits and fbi reports etc which clearly can be seen by all by all reading these comments by the vast amount of testimony etc which i posted (you guys should try it ) ,no where in my comments do you see opinions or theories . now i wonder what people see when reading your comments ? .
fobrien1 2 months ago
@fobrien1 Sir, I could post the entire Autopsy Report, together with the findings of the four commissions that established its accuracy, and still you'd claim foul play.
TennesseeOwnsMyBones 2 months ago
@TennesseeOwnsMyBones and i can (and have ) post a list of witnesses who contradict the autopsy findings ,if the evidence wasnt contradicted by the witnesses we wouldnt be here, i didnt imagine all this or make all this stuff up as you would like people to believe .im not here to change your mind (that would be futile) im just here to post the evidence so people just learning about this case have all the facts good bad or indifferent .
fobrien1 2 months ago
@fobrien1 When have you ever posted the findings of the most qualified to make determination of death: the doctors who performed the autopsy? Never! When have you quoted the Warren Commission's and the three other commissions that concluded Kennedy was shot only from behind? Never! When have you quoted a witness that only saw the gaping hole to the front of Kennedy's head? Never! Your agenda could not be more clear. And for all to see, you lack any common sense!
abennett4 2 months ago
@abennett4 again your still in your blinkered world never once did i assert that any witness i named was qualified to determin cause of death or if a wound was and entrance or exit so in this case you dont have an argument . never have i said the witnesses i mentioned tried to determin or assume the cause of death so again you have no argument . all im saying is that very credible and medicaly trained witnesses numbering between 30 and 40 all said there was a large wound on the right rear .
fobrien1 2 months ago
@abennett4 i think you will find ive quoted from the warren commiission and hsca many times ,ive quoted doctor humes saying (in relation to ce399 and the fragments supposedly from it "i cant concieve of where the fragments came from on that missile " and he wasnt the only one of the experts with that opinion and the wc failed to tell us that in their conclusions didnt they , i quoted the hsca lies telling us how all 26 autopsy witnesses contradicted the parklands staff ,didnt i ? .
fobrien1 2 months ago
@fobrien1 Yet you failed to mention that on later inspection, when confronted with the photographs, virtually all Parkland doctors accepted the findings of the Autopsy Report. You make it seem as if all Parkland doctors, to this day, categorically state there was a huge defect in the back of the head, when plenty of them have long since accepted the findings of the autopsy report and the commissions that studied it.
TennesseeOwnsMyBones 2 months ago
@TennesseeOwnsMyBones why would i need to mention some thing thats been mentioned by you guys on this and the other thread numerous times ? this is something thats not in dispute . yes some parkland staff were shown photos of the rear of the head and saw it was intact and so i guess then the only honest and reasonable reply to that was to say i must have been mistaken . however you neglect to mention anything about the attempts to authenticate the autopsy photos ---------------------------
fobrien1 2 months ago
@fobrien1 The photos were authenticated... by all commissions since the Warren commission.
TennesseeOwnsMyBones 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@TennesseeOwnsMyBones "The photos were authenticated... by all commissions since the Warren commission"
well once again we can see that what we were told and what you guys still tell people is not quite accurate and not the full story .such was your haste to proclaim the photos authentic that you didnt even wait for me to finish typing my comment/s .
fobrien1 2 months ago
@TennesseeOwnsMyBones In support of its reconstruction of the murder evidence, the HSCA declared it had authenticated the autopsy photographs. However, the HSCA admitted that its authentication was not quite complete: "Because the Department of Defense was unable to locate the camera and lens that were used to take these [autopsy] photographs,the [photographic] panel was unable to engage in an analysis similar to the one undertaken with the Oswald backyard pictures-----------------------
fobrien1 2 months ago
@TennesseeOwnsMyBones that was designed to determine whether a particular camera in issue had been used to take the photographs that were the subject of inquiry."
In effect, the HSCA was saying that it was unhappy the original camera was unavailable to totally close the loop. Nevertheless, it expressed satisfaction the loop had been closed enough for confidence in the images because it had found features in the extant images that showed a kind of internal consistency one would find ---------
fobrien1 2 months ago
@TennesseeOwnsMyBones only in authentic images. Those consistencies essentially comprise virtually the entire HSCA case for "authentication." But there was an important part of the story the HSCA didn’t tell. Luckily, the JFK Review Board’s Doug Horne did tell it, after he excavated that part of the story from suppressed HSCA files. It is a rather different story than the one implied by the HSCA’s comment, "Because the Department of Defense was unable to locate the camera and lens --------------
fobrien1 2 months ago
@TennesseeOwnsMyBones that were used to take these [autopsy] photographs." Regarding that sentence, Horne wrote, "By late 1997, enough related documents had been located and assembled by the authors to bring into serious doubt the accuracy of the HSCA’s [statement]." It was not precisely true the Department of Defense had been unable to locate the camera used to take JFK’s autopsy photographs. ----------------------------
fobrien1 2 months ago
@TennesseeOwnsMyBones Apparently, the DoD had found the camera. The DoD wrote the HSCA that "the only [camera] in use at the National Naval Medical Center in 1963" had been sent to the HSCA for study. The HSCA, however, wasn’t pleased with the DoD’s camera. In a letter asking the Secretary of Defense to look for another one,HSCA chief counsel Robert Blakey explained the problem: "[O]ur photographic experts have determined that this camera, -----------------------
fobrien1 2 months ago
@TennesseeOwnsMyBones or at least the particular lens and shutter attached to it, could not have been used to take [JFK’s] autopsy pictures." Whereas the HSCA had publicly claimed the original autopsy camera could not be found, the suppressed record suggests that camera was found, and that it was tested. And it also found that it couldn’t be matched to Kennedy’s images. The HSCA staff elected not to share any of this information with the public nor its panel of forensic consultants.-----------
fobrien1 2 months ago
@TennesseeOwnsMyBones Horne reported that Kodak, which did work for the Review Board, found no evidence the current autopsy images had been falsified. And as Horne emphasized in his memo, the HSCA’s misstatement, as misleading as it is, may not be as sinister as it seems at first blush. The type of camera used was a "view" camera. It had a flat, square back that houses the double-sided film packs, and an attached bellows.-----------------------------------------------------
fobrien1 2 months ago
@TennesseeOwnsMyBones Attached to the front of the bellows are an interchangeable lens and a shutter mechanism, which may be switched out for different tasks. The lens and shutter used in 1963 may have been replaced by the time the DoD fetched the camera for the HSCA in 1977.And so a different lens or shutter might explain why the camera didn’t match JFK’s photographs. But unfortunately, there is no certainty that a different lens and shutter do explain the mismatch.--------------------
fobrien1 2 months ago
@TennesseeOwnsMyBones Horne searched through the files for the tests the HSCA conducted that proved a mismatch, but could find none. He also searched for the camera, and reported it has vanished. So while Horne was unable to confirm an innocent explanation for the mismatch, he was unable to exclude the obvious, sinister explanation: photo tampering.The Kodak finding that the extant images reveal no tampering proves that the extant images themselves have no internal inconsistencies-----------
fobrien1 2 months ago
@TennesseeOwnsMyBones that would prove tampering. It cannot, however, prove that no images are missing, which, evidence suggests, may well be the case. Nor can it disprove that a different camera than had been supposed took the images. Nor, even, can it disprove another possibility: that the current inventory is an entirely separate set of internally consistent images, but a different one than the one that may have originally existed.
fobrien1 2 months ago
@fobrien1 *Eveywhere* in your comments are opinions and theories. They are very transparent. You look at every piece of evidence against Oswald with an overtly biased critical view. Your agenda is clear for all to see. No common sense!
abennett4 2 months ago
@abennett4 if i posted an opinion and asserted its a fact im sure you can point to the comment in question , and your well aware i dont have a theory or theories as some people do i just stick with the evidence but again if ive posted a theory of mine im sure you can point to the comment in question . "no common sense " well im very happy to let people reading decide which of us has debated with common sense /knowledge and intelligence .
fobrien1 2 months ago
@fobrien1 No theories on your part is it? Tell me: was Lyndon Johnson in any way, shape or form involved in the assassination of JFK?
TennesseeOwnsMyBones 2 months ago
@TennesseeOwnsMyBones yes i have posted no theories what so ever . never once have i claimed such a thing if it is your claim that i have then i feel compelled to ask you to point out the comment in which i said such a thing .is it your intent now to falsely attribute comments to me which i never made ? as that very much seems the case with your last comment .
fobrien1 2 months ago
@fobrien1 Of course you have a theory... Otherwise you wouldn't try so hard to prove the findings of four separate commissions wrong.
TennesseeOwnsMyBones 2 months ago
@TennesseeOwnsMyBones well then tell all the people reading what you believe my theory is `? (which again for the record ive never mentioned even once ) ,i guess this means you have a theory about a conspiracy theory doesnt it .
fobrien1 2 months ago
@fobrien1 If the evidence has been a) tampered with or b) covered-up, that leads to the question: by whom, and why? There's your theory. Someone or something wanted to 'hide the truth'. Makes for great bedtime reading, true, but it gets very old when factually debating the Kennedy assassination.
TennesseeOwnsMyBones 2 months ago
@TennesseeOwnsMyBones well a simple example of covering up can be seen by the HSCA saying that all the autopsy witnesses contradicted the parklands witnesses (and we know thats a blatant lie ) a lot of this testimony was omited from the HSCAs report . if the ARRB didnt release a lot of testimony we wouldnt have known about this syuff even to day . if you dont see any thing wrong with all this i really dont know what else to say to you .
fobrien1 2 months ago
@fobrien1 Well, as there are inconsistencies, and they are so obvious, and they are the result of malintention, then presto: you are a conspiracy theorist.
TennesseeOwnsMyBones 2 months ago
@TennesseeOwnsMyBones when i see a blatant lie by the HSCA i call a spade a spade and i call it a blatant lie but it seems you see a blatant lie and call it an inconsistency ,when i see a blatant lie by bugliosi saying "oswald claimed he ate with jarmin" i call it a blatant lie i guess you would call it an error ,i guess that speaks vollumes for both of us .
fobrien1 2 months ago
@fobrien1 No, not really...
TennesseeOwnsMyBones 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@TennesseeOwnsMyBones "Otherwise you wouldn't try so hard to prove the findings of four separate commissions wrong."
i dont have to prove anything the warren commission and HSCAs own words do the proving all by them selves .
fobrien1 2 months ago
@fobrien1 Name call? Pray tell where I called you names.
TennesseeOwnsMyBones 2 months ago
"King has done a prodigious amount of research here... The depiction of Oswald and his family — his beautiful Russian wife, his overbearing mother — rings true, and Oswald’s motivation becomes clear: He’s an angry, twisted man determined to be “great.”" - From The Washington Post's review of Stephen King's novel "11/22/63". Due out 11/8/11!
abennett4 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@abennett4 It is clear that Stephen King has come to the same conclusion that any serious researcher of the Kennedy assassination has: Oswald killed Kennedy and he acted alone!
abennett4 2 months ago
Back and to the left.....a shot from behind would have sent him forward....you see Jackie....she is reaching to the boot of the car to pick up his brains...you need to look at film from the day...not some computer crap..!!!
bmthman42 2 months ago
@bmthman42 Actually, Kennedy's DOES lurch forward at the precise moment of impact, between frames 312 (before impact) & frame 313 (just after impact). It moves VIOLENTLY forward, but only briefly - in less than 1/18th of a second. The back-and-to-the-left motion occurs after the bullet is long gone. In all likelihood, it's a neurological reaction from severe/sudden brain trauma.
They did an autopsy on Kennedy. It was determined that he was shot from BEHIND.
THOSE are the facts!
davidemerling 2 months ago
@davidemerling "They did an autopsy on Kennedy. It was determined that he was shot from BEHIND.
THOSE are the facts!"
we were told that saddam hussien had weapons of mass destrucion and we know as FACT he didnt ,so when people are told things are facts especially in this case that isnt always the case . and jfks wounds and their locations are no exception .
fobrien1 2 months ago
@fobrien1 Are you saying the photos and x-rays - along with the autopsy report itself is all a fabrication - all done with the cooperation of the THREE doctors and the many onlookers were in the Bethesda morgue, two of which were FBI agents?
davidemerling 2 months ago
@davidemerling im saying what we were told and what some people still tell us are facts may not be as factual as we were told . case in point you tell people "They did an autopsy on Kennedy. It was determined that he was shot from BEHIND.THOSE are the facts! " now that may well be what the warren and hsca report says but you and the hsca omit the important FACT that a very large amount of people including those at the autopsy said jfk had a large wound on the back of the head ----------
fobrien1 2 months ago
@fobrien1 Which Bethesda doctors spoke of a large wound in the back? Names?
TennesseeOwnsMyBones 2 months ago
@fobrien1 So you think the doctors LIED about there NOT being a large hole in the back of the head while others were in the room plainly seeing such a hole? Ridiculous! Photographs and x-rays support the findings of the autopsy report and CONTRADICT those who believe that there was a huge hole back there - implying that it was an exit wound. And yet, we can PLAINLY see that there is a gaping in hole in the right/front of the president's head. Do you think there were TWO holes?
davidemerling 2 months ago
@davidemerling have the autopsy photos been authenticated using the autopsy camera ? .
did the doctors lie well going by all the very credible and medicaly trained witnesses who contradicted them to any reasonable and intelligent person that would seem logical wouldnt it . i ask again if all is as you and the hsca said why did the hsca feel the need to lie and say all of the autopsy witnesses contradicted parklands witnesses which was untrue and a blatant lie ? .
fobrien1 2 months ago
@fobrien1 I encouraged everybody who has ever pondered this crap that is fed to them via conspiracy books on the issue of OTHER doctors (at Parkland) contradicting the finding of the Bethesda autopsy - READ the Warren Commission testimony of the Parkland doctors and tell me that they sound like doctors who examined the body and were confident with their findings. Then balance that with THREE doctors doing an autopsy that took HOURS. This is where common sense comes in.
davidemerling 2 months ago
@davidemerling if autopsy witnesses etc hadnt contradicted the autopsy findings and hadnt said pretty much the same as the parklands staff said you might have an argument ,but the fact is autopsy witnesses etc did not contradict the parklands witnesses at all. but of course they are all mistaken or liars and were crazy kooks for believeing them because we just cant accept that dumb oswald could kill jfk .
fobrien1 2 months ago
@fobrien1 What contradictions? Please, give me the names of all the autopsy doctors who contradicted the final verdict as signed by Humes.
TennesseeOwnsMyBones 2 months ago
@fobrien1 Let's do it THIS way - you name the autopsy witness who contradicted the THREE DOCTORS who conducted the autopsy. My guess is you have people like enlisted technicians, photographers, and your liberal interpretation of statements made by medically UNQUALIFIED people - like FBI notes. See - THIS is the difference between the common sense involved in resolving conflicting statements. You go with second grade witnesses and I go with the actually AUTOPSY DOCTORS.
davidemerling 2 months ago
@davidemerling you have no need to guess david as your fully aware that i posted a list of witnesses and what they saw . firstly its not just a photographer as you well know its the autopsy photographer (let me guess he wasnt a qualified patholagist so he couldnt possibly be expected to know if he is looking at at the back of someones head or the front right ?) ,secondly i interpreted nothing liberaly or otherwise and your well aware of the fact i posted the witnesses own words.
fobrien1 2 months ago
@fobrien1 Yes, I'm aware who your likely "witnesses" would be. That's why I asked the question. I can understand your reluctance to enumerate them. I've read all that crap. The bottom line is I have AUTOPSY DOCTORS and you don't.
The "liberal interpretations" of