JFK assassination.

[The Acolyte]

I'll have a look for the photo when I'm on my home pc. They showed it on the Discovery program last week that PB15 re-opened this thread for. Pretty gruesome. They also spoke to the policeman who rode straight though the haze of blood and brain matter that came from Kennedy after the head shot, and interviewed a student who looked in the car outside the hospital (there was an old black and white press photo and you could see the young lad in it) so they could try and compare blood splatter patterns on their modern tests.

 

Did the car appear as bullet ridden as some conspiracy people claim?

It was washed and refurbished on order by LBJ before the anybody got the chance to impound it for ballistics.

[The Dude Abides]

Warning! The following content is NOT WORK SAFE. Click the Show button to reveal.

How is his head in one piece?

[sybian]

Has anybody proved conclusively that the three shots fired at a moving target in that time frame with a bolt action rifle and that degree of accuracy could actually be done? I have seen FBI agents loading and dry firing the same make of rifle on TV documentaries and saying it can but has it actually been done?

[Jose Jones]

What about him?

 

Well, why did he shoot Oswald, and why was he able to get so close to shoot him like that?

I’m willing to agree that Oswald was a lone nutcase. Was Jack Ruby also a lone nutcase?

So that’s two lone nutcases?

[Total Longo]

Has anybody proved conclusively that the three shots fired at a moving target in that time frame with a bolt action rifle and that degree of accuracy could actually be done? I have seen FBI agents loading and dry firing the same make of rifle on TV documentaries and saying it can but has it actually been done?

 

As i said, expert marksman have repeatedly tried to do what Oswald allegedly attempted, none have managed to do it with any degree of accuracy, and by all accounts, whilst in the Marines, Oswald was at best an average marksman.

 

It's the Ruby angle that always makes me think there's more to it than a lone nut. Even PB said himself that's something that he can't explain. A Very shady individual indeed, who pleaded to be taken to Washington to testify but was ignored (why?) and then was dead by a previoulsy un-noticed and virulent strain of cancer within months of this.

 

Just found this link, throws up some equally interesting (and some admittedly preposterous) ideas and questions...

 

J.F.K. ASSASSINATION 11/22/63 COINCIDENCE OR CONSPIRACY?

[The Acolyte]

Warning! The following content is NOT WORK SAFE. Click the Show button to reveal.

 

How is his head in one piece?

 

Its not. Because the photo is in black and white you can't see the state his head is in, think you can just make out how jagged the right side of his forehead is. The majority of the damage was at the back. Then again they may have doctorerd the photo's.

These are not official autopsy photo's. They have yet to be officially released.

My opinion is if they were to release it would point to a conspiracey of some sorts which would lead the US citizens to lose all faith in their government no matter how long ago it occured. They can't allow that. Now you've got secret service heads still having to bury evidence left over before some of them were born. What scares me is that they've had Bush senior as president. The man was head of the CIA back in the 70's, don't tell me he didn't know or at least knew guys who knew. Scum bag

Edited February 19, 2010 by The Acolyte

[JohnnyH]

Warning! The following content is NOT WORK SAFE. Click the Show button to reveal.

 

How is his head in one piece?

 

It's not. There is a large 10cm piece of skull missing, and the flesh from the side of his head flaps down. You can see this in other photos from the autopsy. You can also see it on the footage where his scalp flaps down over the right side of his face when the bullet hits.

 

Did the car appear as bullet ridden as some conspiracy people claim?

It was washed and refurbished on order by LBJ before the anybody got the chance to impound it for ballistics.

 

No, but not many people got close to the car and pictures could have been altered even back then so I didn't really pay much attention to that as a proof of or of no conspiracy. And yes, some parts of the car were washed with a rag and bucket of water (you can see the bucket in photos of the car outside the hospital) but it was half hearted and the washing stopped quick enough with the car still covered in blood and brain matter around teh seat area. Some pictures were taken, but then it was completely cleaned.

 

Has anybody proved conclusively that the three shots fired at a moving target in that time frame with a bolt action rifle and that degree of accuracy could actually be done? I have seen FBI agents loading and dry firing the same make of rifle on TV documentaries and saying it can but has it actually been done?

 

Yes. It's been done a number of times.

[The Acolyte]

And yes, some parts of the car were washed with a rag and bucket of water (you can see the bucket in photos of the car outside the hospital) but it was half hearted and the washing stopped quick enough with the car still covered in blood and brain matter around teh seat area. Some pictures were taken, but then it was completely cleaned.

 

QUOTE]

 

I've seen those pictures as well now. How crass is that?!

Washing the car in full view of the public outside the hospital while the president is breathing his last inside! What was the point handing it over to the feds after you'd already removed any evidence? Have you seen the pics they took. I could've done a better job with camera I got when I was 10!Didn't know that after they washed and refurbshed the car another 3-4 presidents used it.

Now would you sit in the same car as the bloke who had your job got his brains blown out in? Is the desire to be president that strong. Your sitting there waving to the crowd in a motor that was a key piece of evidence (although never used) in a former presidents murder and you don't even question it?!

[Ted]

Who killed Marilyn Monroe?

[JohnnyH]

I've seen those pictures as well now. How crass is that?!

Washing the car in full view of the public outside the hospital while the president is breathing his last inside! What was the point handing it over to the feds after you'd already removed any evidence? Have you seen the pics they took. I could've done a better job with camera I got when I was 10!Didn't know that after they washed and refurbshed the car another 3-4 presidents used it.

 

Now would you sit in the same car as the bloke who had your job got his brains blown out in? Is the desire to be president that strong. Your sitting there waving to the crowd in a motor that was a key piece of evidence (although never used) in a former presidents murder and you don't even question it?!

 

The cleaning of the car was all very odd. And as you say, the photos were rubbish.

 

The car is on show now in a museum. I must admit I'd love to get my photo taken in the seat.

 

 

Who killed Marilyn Monroe?

 

 

Marilyn Monroe did.

 

 

 

 

 

 

or did she....

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yes. Yes she did.

[tenner]

Watched a programme the other night. They had a shooter at the three points where they could have been to see if there was more than one shooter. In the end it showed that there was only one shooter. But what i found strange is the car been cleaned as the president lay dying in the hospital. They had hospital staff to clean the car and still never found out who told them to do it.

[paddyberger15]

Hmmmm, right, I'm going to give this thread another bump, mainly so I can ask questions and most likely just chat to Longo about issues because it's easier than PM.

 

I re-read some of the thread the other day and decided that I would focus on the Zapruder film and now I have a series of questions.

 

OK, I don't think it is making a jaw dropping statement to accept that the version of the Zapruder film that the recent analysis has used has been doctored, it is that obvious.

 

Things in the background, foreground don't add up and I'd agree that it was a composite done with 1963 technology.

 

My main question is this I guess.... and obviously there will be tributary issues that flow from it...even accepting that the film was doctored, how does this materially affect what happened in the car? The magic bullet theory is still debunked when the relative position of Jack and Connally are established and that is still an exit would to the front right of his head, meaning the bullet entered back right, meaning the fatal shot was fired from above and behind.

 

Now this isn't me playing Devils Advocate at all, can someone educate me on the how, why and what an acceptance that film has been doctored changes?

 

I accept that the Limousine must have slowed to almost a stop during the shooting, giving an opportunity for another gunman to take a pop, but all of the known forensic evidence just doesn't add up to there being a gunman front right....if there was another gunman, then based on the version of the film we have seen, he missed.

 

The Zapruder film, whether manipulated or not, can't or hasn't changed the position of anyone in the car or how they reacted....or am I missing a real big, basic point?

 

Is the main point that if the film was manipulated then all subsequent analysis based on the the film and its content is basically flawed from the outset?

 

Phil....any views or points?

 

Anybody else who has a view and answers to this please chip in. With my busy, richly varied and fulfilling life being as it is, I've had a couple of days to research this and I'm still trying to get my head round the implications.

[WaltonRed]

Rob, so the Zapruder film is a fake/doctored?

[paddyberger15]

Rob, so the Zapruder film is a fake/doctored?

 

Yeah, I'd say so Smiffy, but it's one of those situations that once you start looking for it, it seems more obvious.

Because of the very nature of the subject matter therein, as a viewer you are always drawn most intently to the business part of the film, which are the sounds of the bullets and the reactions and impact in the car. You are drawn to that like a Moth to a light, and any strange inconsistencies that seem to appear around those few seconds in movements you just attribute to the melee going on and the unsteadiness of the film.

Once you actually start analysing the film with errors/manipulation in mind, it doesn't take a great leap of faith to accept that most certainly frames have been removed at the very least. The car and its occupants make moves which are just impossible, plus when you really start looking at the physical environment (objects, onlookers etc) you see inconsistencies that can only be explained by someone tampering with it.

I think that if/once you accept this, there are then two main questions that stem from it...

1 By whom? and

2 to what end(s)?

That is when you start getting into the realms of opinion, conjecture and theorising and at this point explanations and standpoints start to diverge.

[Anubis]

How about, and I'm not investing in this, just offering up a wacky theory - Oswald is assasinated by Jack Ruby, who is known to have ties to organised crime.

 

Kennedy was known to have had liasons with Marilyn Monroe, and was allegedly visiting her at some hotel in which Sinatra had an interest. It was also widely believed organised crime had some dirt on JFK because of this. Indeed, Robert Kennedy (who was US Attorney General) had Sinatra banned from visiting the White House after investigating his links with organised crime.

 

Perhaps Robert Kennedy, believing organised crime to have something to do with his brother's death, had the film doctored to sew the seeds of doubt and suggest a conspiracy, giving him a pretext to go after organised crime should he gain the Presidency.

 

I knew I shouldn't have had this whole bottle of wine.

[paddyberger15]

Just to mark your card, for anyone who is interested in the subject, Monday sees another anniversary of the assassination and the History Channel, 529 on Sky, are showing a couple of documentaries that I have never seen before starting at 9pm.

Now, these aren't advertised as 'new' or 'exclusive', but they are recently made and could throw some new light on the issues. From a quick view of the trailer for one of them, it certainly appears to be pro-conspiracy....about the body being stolen etc..

Like I said, they may be familiar to some of you, they are new to me, just in case anyone might be interested.

[Total Longo]

The one that was one on Discovery last night "Did the Mob killed Kennedy?" was interesting, but ultimately risible due to the distinct lack of credibility in terms of the evidence presented.

 

I assume you didn't see it Rob?

[Faustus]

Who killed Marilyn Monroe?

 

A bit off topic, but has anybody else heard the rumour about her getting goosed on the slab?

[Total Longo]

Hmmmm, right, I'm going to give this thread another bump, mainly so I can ask questions and most likely just chat to Longo about issues because it's easier than PM.

 

I re-read some of the thread the other day and decided that I would focus on the Zapruder film and now I have a series of questions.

 

OK, I don't think it is making a jaw dropping statement to accept that the version of the Zapruder film that the recent analysis has used has been doctored, it is that obvious.

 

Things in the background, foreground don't add up and I'd agree that it was a composite done with 1963 technology.

 

My main question is this I guess.... and obviously there will be tributary issues that flow from it...even accepting that the film was doctored, how does this materially affect what happened in the car? The magic bullet theory is still debunked when the relative position of Jack and Connally are established and that is still an exit would to the front right of his head, meaning the bullet entered back right, meaning the fatal shot was fired from above and behind.

 

Now this isn't me playing Devils Advocate at all, can someone educate me on the how, why and what an acceptance that film has been doctored changes?

 

I accept that the Limousine must have slowed to almost a stop during the shooting, giving an opportunity for another gunman to take a pop, but all of the known forensic evidence just doesn't add up to there being a gunman front right....if there was another gunman, then based on the version of the film we have seen, he missed.

 

The Zapruder film, whether manipulated or not, can't or hasn't changed the position of anyone in the car or how they reacted....or am I missing a real big, basic point?

 

Is the main point that if the film was manipulated then all subsequent analysis based on the the film and its content is basically flawed from the outset?

 

Phil....any views or points?

 

Anybody else who has a view and answers to this please chip in. With my busy, richly varied and fulfilling life being as it is, I've had a couple of days to research this and I'm still trying to get my head round the implications.

 

Sorry i missed this Rob. I've always thought that the Zapruder film is the single biggest piece of evidence available to throw doubt on the Warren Commission's verdict of the lone gunman theory, mainly because of the movement of Kennedy immediately after he is hit with the fatal headshot. I know this has been discussed countless times before, but i still cannot accept how a body would move the way it does if it wasn't hit from the front (or side as the case may be), so i can't see how anyone anti-conspiracy would want this to be doctored to favour the conspiracy viewpoint?

[Red Phoenix]

The guy that did the Secret of Oz and The Money Masters documentaries said this a while back on his forum : "Because he stabbed the Agency in the back at the Bay of Pigs and Bobby was going after the Mafia."

[paddyberger15]

The one that was one on Discovery last night "Did the Mob killed Kennedy?" was interesting, but ultimately risible due to the distinct lack of credibility in terms of the evidence presented.

 

I assume you didn't see it Rob?

 

Damn and blast, no I didn't mate, didn't even realise it was on. The good thing about Discovery and those channels is that they tend to repeat frequently in a small cycle, so hopefully it will be on again soon.

I think any 'Mob hit' conspiracy lacks credibility due mainly to the main planks of the argument not being backed up with a shred of evidence....apart from the old 'well explain away Ruby then?' Chestnut.

Theories like these, and the 'Military Industrial Complex' one(s) do some serve purpose though. Like some of the more far fetched Jack the Ripper tales, what they do provide is a good context to understand the social and political landscape of the time. Ultimately they are always rendered useless by small things like evidence and details, but like with all conspiracy theories, they aren't without merit for the wider understanding of the issues and the whole scenario.

[Total Longo]

The initial theories were reasonably credible, but it just lost any semblance of credibility when the main crux of the show was given over to some old bank robber who shared a cell with Carlos Marcello in the 1980's, he was approached by the FBI and allegedly forced into being an informant. The premise was that he put a radio in the cell, which was relaying their conversations back to the FBI office were they were being taped. Unfortunately though, when Marcello came straight out and admitted he had Kennedy shot, this was in the recreation yard, so conveniently not caught on tape. The guy passed a polygraph test, but so what? It doesn't prove anything, and to me a documentary that started out as an interesting take on the whole conspiracy angle descended into pointless farce.

 

I think the ones on this week will be a whole lot more interesting.

[Total Longo]

Anyone seen this??

 

JFK 2

[paddyberger15]

The guy that did the Secret of Oz and The Money Masters documentaries said this a while back on his forum : "Because he stabbed the Agency in the back at the Bay of Pigs and Bobby was going after the Mafia."

 

Both of those two points are (very likely to be) true mate. But the bottom line is that Oswald was in the area, worked where the shots were fired from and shot officer Tippet whilst fleeing the scene.

He was also a no mark who had delusions of grandeur and would have been a Capitalist had America been a Communist country and would have been eating Marmalade out of a jar with his hands on a street corner had the Government made Marmalade illegal. He was somebody who wanted to make a name for himself, and he did.

I'm sure there were plenty of folks who wanted to blow Kennedy's head off, but as I've said before, only one of them was in Dallas that day and Oswald beat them all to the punch.

You could argue that he was working for someone, ergo it was a 'conspiracy', but he pulled the trigger that day and was the only gunman there. The bit about him working for someone else is all conjecture, there is little or no evidence tying him to the ONI, CIA or any other body, he may have wanted to seem connected, but he was a no mark that they wouldn't have touched... In my opinion of course. The other side of the argument has been eloquently put on here before now.

The 'Mob' had nowt to with the assassination of Kennedy. Oswald pulled the trigger and IF he was working for anyone, it certainly wasn't the Mafia.

[paddyberger15]

Anyone seen this??

 

JFK 2

 

Doesn't seem to want to load for me Phil. Will have a look later.

I'll Sky+ these two programmes on Monday night in case you don't get to see them. If you do, we can dissect them next week and see what we drew from them.