JFK: Genuine (naive) questions
Don't laugh at me.
This is one of those odd areas you get (well I do anyway) where Everyone Knows Everything but I don't. Kind of like how I only saw Reservoir Dogs for the first time this year.
Anyway, don't call me a whacko, just fill in the gaps.
Yer man, he's in the Caddy, bowling down the boulevard in Texas with the Missus, and young master Oswald, he's in a building of some description. When Jack's passed him, on his way to that grassy knoll whatever, Lee blows his
ing head off. From behind right?
Don't his brains go in the wrong direction or am I missing something?
I'm aware there has been some ... uh .. debate about this over the last 40 years, but I'm stumped on this. There's some Really Good Reason I'm missing?
This is one of those odd areas you get (well I do anyway) where Everyone Knows Everything but I don't. Kind of like how I only saw Reservoir Dogs for the first time this year.
Anyway, don't call me a whacko, just fill in the gaps.
Yer man, he's in the Caddy, bowling down the boulevard in Texas with the Missus, and young master Oswald, he's in a building of some description. When Jack's passed him, on his way to that grassy knoll whatever, Lee blows his
ing head off. From behind right?Don't his brains go in the wrong direction or am I missing something?
I'm aware there has been some ... uh .. debate about this over the last 40 years, but I'm stumped on this. There's some Really Good Reason I'm missing?
Comments
Of course, the official investigation leaves a lot to be desired. I should also note that my only source of information was the JFK movie, which I hear fictionalized and mistold a lot about the situation.
if you ask the senator from pennsylvania (arlen "magic bullet" spector) he would tell you that one shot caused seven separate wounds in kennedy and connelly. spector was council to the warren commission and was the "brains" behind the warren report's "magic bullet theory".
Originally posted by Scott
When a rain drop falls into water does it only splash forward or does it splash back in the opposite direction the drop came from? Must be a conspiracy!
First post (mine) admits ignorance and asks for evidence.
Second post offers concrete reason as requested.
Third post offers conrecte reason as requested.
Fourth post contains related facts. Facts.
Fifth post reads WAAAAAAAY too much into the observable facts; the only sadness is that this staggering irony is entirely lost on its poster.
Originally posted by Harald
Fifth post reads WAAAAAAAY too much into the observable facts; the only sadness is that this staggering irony is entirely lost on its poster.
i think scott was trying to point out the wide range of conspiracy theories that float around regarding this event. i mean just do a google search on the subject and you're going to hit on some crazy stuff.
most of the theories from the movie J.F.K. come from jim garrison, a district attorney from new orleans who brought to trial a case against a new orleans businessman involved in a conspiracy to kill kennedy. many believe garrison to be crazy, and as many believe garrison to have brought to light many shortcomings in the warren report if nothing else. (the warren report was a blue ribbon panel headed by supreme court justice earl warren, and had then congressman, future president gerald ford, to investigate the assassination)
i like the movie, but it's work of fiction.
my favorite part in the movie is the part donald sutherland plays, a cia spook (who's character is an amalgamation of characters in garrison's story.) who reads a laundry list of items, that can be used to involve the government and "military industrial complex" in a conspiracy.
what this all has to do with the trajectory or direction of the president's brain after being shot? well not much, but it's just one of the aspect's to the warren report's contention that there was only one gunman. if you don't agree with that (the last poll i saw, indicates more americans don't agree with it, than do.) then you have to open up the whole big kettle of stinky fish.
The Zapruder film, ( the one that clearly shows the shooting ) is the only one alleged to have been made.
Yet live TV footage of the time (as well as the Zapruder film itself ) clearly shows at least another half a dozen or so people with movie cameras in their hands, as well as others taking still shots.
Where has all that footage gone ?
Secondly, with all the currently technology available to sharpen up film footage etc , why hasn't this been done with the Zapruder film to glean more imformation ?
Originally posted by Aquafire
Couple of interesting points to consider.
The Zapruder film, ( the one that clearly shows the shooting ) is the only one alleged to have been made.
Yet live TV footage of the time (as well as the Zapruder film itself ) clearly shows at least another half a dozen or so people with movie cameras in their hands, as well as others taking still shots.
Where has all that footage gone ?
Secondly, with all the currently technology available to sharpen up film footage etc , why hasn't this been done with the Zapruder film to glean more imformation ?
congress did reopen the investigation, during the clinton administration, and came up with no new conclusions. a dvd was released with the zapruder film magnified enhanced and what have you, a couple of years ago.
there was other film but no one else caught the assassination, lately a new conspiracy theory has popped up that the zapruder film is fake!
Wouldn't the exit wound be the big wound? Or did Oswald use a hollow point bullet? The big question people raise is the direction the head jerks when he's hit. I can't remember how it goes at this point. I imagine the explosive force of the exit wound over a larger area would produce the force to throw his head around, equal and opposite. I imagine slim high-speed projectile would barely move a hair on his head. It's like the difference between an olympic diver and someone doing a belly flop. One displaces a lot more water.
Originally posted by BuonRotto
Wouldn't the exit wound be the big wound? Or did Oswald use a hollow point bullet? The big question people raise is the direction the head jerks when he's hit. I can't remember how it goes at this point. I imagine the explosive force of the exit wound over a larger area would produce the force to throw his head around, equal and opposite. I imagine slim high-speed projectile would barely move a hair on his head. It's like the difference between an olympic diver and someone doing a belly flop. One displaces a lot more water.
One other theory put forth a few years ago states that JFK's head goes backwards (at one point) due to the shock of the bullet entering the brain - an instinctive response - thus countering the idea of the bullet coming from a different direction.
Originally posted by Scott
When a rain drop falls into water does it only splash forward or does it splash back in the opposite direction the drop came from? Must be a conspiracy!
Actually, there is a recoil effect, but that is relative to the water drop being made of the same material that it is impacting.
But even then when you have the first impact you do get a crown of water that flies up and out. Not in the direction of the drop.
I feel the reall oddness lies in how Oswald was able to defect to the U.S.S.R and then back again- during the Cold War? Never seen that one explained. Time for the C-word? Patsy or trained Manchurian Killer? Lone nutter who just happened to have been taught Russian by the military, and then goes there??
The Zapruder film shows a head wound that contradicts the above, but that does agree with the Warren Commission Report and what was seen at Bethesda Naval Hospital.
There is a contradiction there. See "Best Evidence" by David Lifton for details.
The Zapruder film reportedly has two splices in it. "The Great Zapruder Film Hoax: Deceit and Deception in the Death of JFK" (Edited by James H. Fetzer. Ph.D., Catfeet Press, 2003) has a great many other, far more important problems with the film. There are serious questions with the film that center, not on whether it is 'real', but whether it has been altered.
Someone in the "The Great Zapruder Film Hoax" book asks the following question. If people see a film that depicts an event, and then hear witnesses to that event who describe something different from what is on film, who will most people believe? The event that *they see* captured on film, or the event as described by eyewitnesses?
The film of course. BTW, the film agrees with the Warren Commision. Ahhhh, thanks. All is well. And life goes on.
Aries 1B
Your arguments back and forth about the physics of JFK's headshot reaction are based upon the Zapruder Film. The film may not be the gold standard of evidence that everyone for 40 years has thought....
Aries 1B
Air times