- Thread starter
- #26
A target which is hit by a bullet doesn't automatically move in the direction that the bullet was travelling.
It's extremely basic ballistics.
JFK: The Smoking Gun
- Thread starter Bunk Moreland
- Start date
- Tagged users None
A target which is hit by a bullet doesn't automatically move in the direction that the bullet was travelling.
It's extremely basic ballistics.
Wallaby, you have summed it up perfectly, didn't anybody watch the Four Corners doco last week, explained everything with a full re-enactment, closed down the streets in Dallas, used the same type of vehicle, same type of weapon, even had their own Jackie in a pink suit, they used lasers to show the trajectory of the bullets, they even showed how the casings would have landed on the floor of the book depository. Unfortunately people find the truth to be too mundane so there must be some sort of conspiracy theory, ho hum.
- Thread starter
- #28
I still find the Warren Commission easily the most plausible explanation.
The program that was on 4 Corners however didn't touch on the ballistics side of things and the differing behaviour of the two bullets which hit their intended target - this is what doesn't make much sense to me atm.
Interestingly this was first raised by Howard Donohue. In 1967 12 weapons experts were invited by CBS to participate in a recreation of the shooting. The only one who was able to replicate what Oswald did was Donohue, and it was this experience which led to his investigation, and subsequent conclusion that the headshot did not come from Oswald's rifle.
Growing up on a farm and having shot a lot of foxes I beg to differ, no offence Bunk
Not too many impacts from the back would smack a head back and to the left
An impact from front and to the right would
If you watch the Zapruder film closely you will see JFK's head first pushed forward then back. This would indicate 2 shots almost simultaneously. One from the Daltex building and one from the grassy knoll?
You will see him grasp his throat area and tilt fwd, his wife knows something's wrong and pushes across the seat to him
The senator ( ? ) in the front seat turns back toward him and then bang, his head is snapped back and to the left
Now , not being a smart arse , but can anyone explain how a shot from behind can snap a head back and also spray parts of a head back toward a bullet
In my opinion it was a turkey shoot, behind, to the side and from in front to the right
The film clearly shows this
Who was responsible ?
Who knows, but my guess is Oswald may have shown up to do the job, but the job was done and as soon as he realised this he knew who the fall guy was going to be
Dan Cooper
Victory Salute
I find the above interesting, having not heard about it until now.
Nobody will ever come up with an explanation that satisfies everyone. But Oswald, from most accounts was intrinsically involved in the assassination, and the 'laser show' supports that theory.
Texas govenor John Connally.
Did you know there was 3 maybe 4 U.S presidents in Dallas that day. JFK, LBJ (in violation of secret service protocols of not having the president and v.p in the same area at one time, why?), Richard Nixon and maybe George H.W Bush.
- Thread starter
- #34
You're basically just reciting Oliver Stone's ridiculous movie verbatim.
The reaction of the head has been explained many times. Start here http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
- Thread starter
- #35
They can be together for political events.
SS rule is that at least one cabinet minister must be seperated at all times. I think the official line of succession for the presidency is like 18 people long.
Am I ?
Has it ?
Well Bunk considering many people still ask the same question maybe the explanation that you quote doesn't cut it ?
- Jun 23, 2008
- 33,485
- 27,225
- AFL Club
- Collingwood
- Other Teams
- Norwood, Everton, Detroit Red Wings
Because that implies fallability of the powers that be. You also have to explain why he was "accidentally" shooting in the direction of the President too.
The fact that there's still no categorical conclusion to what happened in broad daylight in front of a massive crowd 50 years later to the most important person in America at the time most obviously reeks of cover up.
- Thread starter
- #38
People still ask because you cannot silence a conspiracy theorist with logic. They simply carry on as if they never heard it, or claim the answer is part of the conspiracy.
In any case, the movement of the head backward is not conclusive evidence of a shot from the front. If we were to follow that exact logic, then the answer is a shot from behind anyway - as the head moves forward upon impact before snapping back violently.
Also, the massive wound on the front/right of the head is an exit wound caused the explosion of the missile. A 6mm or 6.5mm round simply doesn't cause this kind of destruction upon entry.
The greatest feat in marksmanship history? He had three shots. One miss, one neck shot, one head shot. I'll reiterate - THE FIRST SHOT MISSED.
Were they tough shots from that distance and with that rifle? Yes. You'd want to be almost a trained marksman wouldn't you?
Oh, that's right, he was.
As for the "dog and pony show", he also killed a police office after the shooting. Hardly what I'd call a nice clean arrest.
Kennedy also had massive exit wound on the back of his head
As for the movement forward before his head snaps back, I apologise but I don't see it
The film clearly shows Kennedy holding his throat from a first shot, then his head snapped back by a second
The interesting thing for those who maintain this head shot came from the back, please bear in mind the scalp of Kennedy flying off back and to the left as well, and also that bone and brain fragments were found on the road behind the point where he was shot
- Thread starter
- #42
Have read Bugliosi's book - stunning piece of work.
Don't have a copy unfortunately - did it address ballistics? Read it many years ago.
Not sure. I've tried to read it every time I visit a friend's place (he won't lend it to me, for good reason). What I've read if very logical, mind you I've read Helter Skelter and that's the same so I wasn't surprised.
The ballistics expert who came up with the neurological spasm theory did so after his experiences hunting jackrabbits. Apparently, if you hit one of these critters in the head with a rifle shot, their relatively powerful hind legs sends them reeling off in all directions. I can't remember the link, but some morbid individual did a study of all the execution footage available. In most cases, prisoners killed with a bullet to the back of the head while in the kneeling position, fell forward. While the ones standing usually just went limp and flopped to the ground in a random fashion. In none of the footage did the jet effect or neurological spasm theories kick in.
The only logical conclusion one can draw, considering JFK was not a jackrabbit, is the neurological spasm theory is a load of bollocks. The 'back and to the left' motion was caused by either a shot from the right front, or a headshot from the rear killed him instantly- and the forward motion of the accelerating car caused his limp body to fall back sharply.
- Thread starter
- #45
The biggest problem with the grassy knoll theory for me is the head wound - there's clearly on film a massive explosion in the front right of the head. How on earth can this be an entrance wound? What were they firing at him, a cannon ball?
Messenger
No, I’m just disappointed
I watched the SBS doco during the week. Sounds the most plausible explanation to me. Certainly more plausible than Oswald pulling it off solo.
It's speculation because the truth is somehow too mundane.
The behaviour of the two bullets does seem weird - one remaining relativly intact (although far from "pristine"), and one exploding into fragments.
Here's my understanding of it.
Bullet 1 (from shot number 2, the so-called "Pristine" bullet, it's not pristine) - Goes through Kennedy's neck (doesn't hit bone), hits Connolly underneath the shoulder and hits the 5th rib, then hits his wrist and lodges in his thigh. How do we know it was the same shot? Because it hits Connolly sideways - the entry wound was the exact length of the bullet. It seems far-fetched and unlikely, but it's been recreated (without human targets) and it can be done.
Bullet two (from shot number 3) - Has nothing to slow it up, so it's travelling at 2100 feet per second, and hits solid bone. That's why the head explodes and so does the bullet. Again, it seems illogical, but it's not.
You're spot on with the grassy knoll theory. If someone had shot him from that direction, there would have been an exit wound at the back left of Kennedy's head. Instead there was nothing. That was the real magic bullet, he managed to miss every person, the car, and all the bystanders.
- Jul 9, 2010
- 24,163
- 26,536
- AFL Club
- Fremantle
I don't know a huge amount and I'm always too conflicted to come to anything resembling a strong belief with these events. But surely a secret service officer... having a loaded gun while sitting behind the president is surely stupid. Wouldn't you be ultra paranoid about that? Wouldn't there be a blatant security breach?
My strongest belief about the JFK death was Oswald being a patsy. But if he did do it, it entirely wouldn't surprise me. Occam's Razor.
My strongest belief about the JFK death was Oswald being a patsy. But if he did do it, it entirely wouldn't surprise me. Occam's Razor.
grizzlym
Premium Platinum
And this just in from that highly respected newspaper The Herald Sun:
More than 50 years on from the JFK assassination, a Hollywood producer has come forward with footage that allegedly proves there was a second shooter on that fateful day in Dallas.
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/wo...fk-assassination/story-fni0xs61-1226767479975
More than 50 years on from the JFK assassination, a Hollywood producer has come forward with footage that allegedly proves there was a second shooter on that fateful day in Dallas.
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/wo...fk-assassination/story-fni0xs61-1226767479975
A Hollywood producer selling to the highest bidder around the 50 year anniversary. I mean come on whatever side of this argument you take you have to think that's a crock right?
Similar threads
