fansince62 Posted March 12, 2003 Share Posted March 12, 2003 interesting post Chris......I'm happily on the sidelines on this one!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
codeorama Posted March 12, 2003 Author Share Posted March 12, 2003 ChrisM.. Do you have any links showing that the Shooting has been duplicated? I haven't seen any. The shot with the motorcade coming toward the building would not have had to deal with the windshield, the height of the building and angle of the shot left JFK clear to a shooter in the snipers nest.. they have done reinactments with dummies in a replica limo to recreate it. The angle of shot and distance may well be "gimmies" to a good marksman, if there was no timeframe to deal with. I still totally disagree that the Magic Bullet could have caused all of the damage it is said to... I agree that a single bullet could have easliy hit both men, but the Magic Bullet got its name becuse it would have to exit the body, do a 90 degree turn and re enter the same body on 2 separate occasions... One seat being higher than the other is not going to make a bullet do U turns..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darth Tater Posted March 12, 2003 Share Posted March 12, 2003 Originally posted by fansince62 Mr Mustard......in the attic....with a long range rifle...... No, I was the second gun man (and this before I was even born! Man, I'm special). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted March 12, 2003 Share Posted March 12, 2003 http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/sbt.htm The bullet could have easily made the wounds without doing a uturn. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
codeorama Posted March 12, 2003 Author Share Posted March 12, 2003 Kilmer, I'm going to take my time and look over the link you just gave me... I'll get back to you...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted March 12, 2003 Share Posted March 12, 2003 Cool. I've been checking out your links as well. I'd love for there to be a conspiracy. Great story if there is. I just dont believe it anymore. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
codeorama Posted March 12, 2003 Author Share Posted March 12, 2003 Originally posted by Kilmer17 Cool. I've been checking out your links as well. I'd love for there to be a conspiracy. Great story if there is. I just dont believe it anymore. I guess I just find that there as so many problems with Oswald being the only nut, that I find it unbelieveable... however, I would not be suprised at the disproval of any one of theses problems individually.. I really wish I had taped the Discovery channel show on the cpu inhancements... that was the best evidance that I have seen that there was a conspiracy... anyway, I want to read and view all these "mini movies.." in your link... Good stuff. Also, there is a great book called "mortal error" that is out of print but used copies can be bought on amazon and it can be found at the library.. (Luckily, I have the hardback) But the book is about a guy from Towson Md that thinks he solved the JFK assassination, it is very in depth and has tons of bullistics info.. His assumption is that the head shot was taken by a .223 cal rifle with an unjacketed bullet... He says he gave up trying to prove it because no evidence could ever place a m16 or ar15 at the site... years later, he uncovered a picture of the Secret service tail car and an SS agent with an AR 15 in his hand.. he did all the bullistics and found the head shot came from SS agent Hickey. He even tries to contact the retired agent but does not get a response. I need to read it again, it was interesting to say the least. link to book on amazon:http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/search-handle-form/102-9668080-3888957 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChrisM Posted March 12, 2003 Share Posted March 12, 2003 cedeorama, Nope I don't have any links. Fact is I'm not much of a hand with these computers. I'm way more comfortable with a rifle than a keyboard! I forget the names but it was on some show I watched where the shots had been done in the necessary time frame, I think by some FBI guy or maybe military? I'm gonna look at the links Kilmer17 provided, maybe its in there. Also, isn't there some disagreement on just how much time was used? Something like a range of six to eight seconds? You may be right on the view for the facing shot. I don't know and was only speculating on reasons. I haven't seen any reinactments of this. Certainly you'll agree that the shooter would be more likely to be spoted as they were coming towards him. Heck for all we know maybe the plan was to take the shot as they approached but maybe Oswald couldnt shoot a man while looking in his eyes?? There are many possibilities. What we do know is that for whatever reason the shots were taken from the rear. I don't see what that fact does to support any conspiricy theory. The problem with most all the TV "documentarys" is that they are always one sided. The "experts" opinions are never questioned by the other side. In a trials, most any witnesss looks pretty good untill the cross examination begins!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChrisM Posted March 12, 2003 Share Posted March 12, 2003 "he did all the bullistics and found the head shot came from SS agent Hickey." I'll bet he also planted the blood at OJ's home!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
codeorama Posted March 12, 2003 Author Share Posted March 12, 2003 Originally posted by ChrisM cedeorama, Nope I don't have any links. Fact is I'm not much of a hand with these computers. I'm way more comfortable with a rifle than a keyboard! I forget the names but it was on some show I watched where the shots had been done in the necessary time frame, I think by some FBI guy or maybe military? I'm gonna look at the links Kilmer17 provided, maybe its in there. Also, isn't there some disagreement on just how much time was used? Something like a range of six to eight seconds? You may be right on the view for the facing shot. I don't know and was only speculating on reasons. I haven't seen any reinactments of this. Certainly you'll agree that the shooter would be more likely to be spoted as they were coming towards him. Heck for all we know maybe the plan was to take the shot as they approached but maybe Oswald couldnt shoot a man while looking in his eyes?? There are many possibilities. What we do know is that for whatever reason the shots were taken from the rear. I don't see what that fact does to support any conspiricy theory. The problem with most all the TV "documentarys" is that they are always one sided. The "experts" opinions are never questioned by the other side. In a trials, most any witnesss looks pretty good untill the cross examination begins!!! I actually found the ONE guy that could duplicate the shooting, his name is Bonner Menninger and he wrote a book on the assassination called Mortal Error... So I have corrected my self, however, he is the only person of record that has officially done it and he doesn't think Oswald could... go figure. I agree that most tv documentaries only show one side and that's what ruins it... they end up looking like paranoid nuts. I would reccomend a book by Jim Marrs called "crossfire", it has little if any of his personal views, it is basically just a fact book and offers both sides in most cases.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted March 12, 2003 Share Posted March 12, 2003 Code, I saw that guy as well. But didnt that assume 4 shots in 6 seconds? Not 3 in 8? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
codeorama Posted March 12, 2003 Author Share Posted March 12, 2003 Originally posted by Kilmer17 Code, I saw that guy as well. But didnt that assume 4 shots in 6 seconds? Not 3 in 8? You could be right, I'm gonna read the book again.. I just can't remember. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChrisM Posted March 12, 2003 Share Posted March 12, 2003 Menninger's not the only one on record. I found this on the link kilmer provided. http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/zirbel.txt Actually, I think too much is being made of this whole time issue. I think I could make the shots in six seconds at a stationary target. It wouldn't be hard to time it and see. If he had 8 seconds as stated I think this would allow ample time to regain the sight picture on the moving target. Also consider that Oswald could track the target for some distance prior to the first shot. Also the clock wouldn't start untill the first shot is heard, so you really only have to work the bolt, sight and fire twice during the 6 to 8 seconds. I'm gonna have to try this! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brave Posted March 13, 2003 Share Posted March 13, 2003 There is other evidence ... circumstantial if not physical, which make a conspiracy likely in my view. - In the summer of 1963 the FBI surveillance captured a man by the name of James Milteer on tape discussing the fact that an assassination of Kennedy "was in the works" and would take place "from a high-rise building with a rifle." - Jack Ruby's phone records show an increasing amount of calls (don't hold me to this but I believe from Chicago and new Orleans - read Giancana and Marcello) which peaked in the days before the assassination. - Why would Jack Ruby shoot Oswald? - Why would Ruby claim before he died in prison that people in high places would have much to lose if his true story got out? - Look into Oswald and you run into curious fact after fact. Here is an ex-military man who renounced his citizenship and lived in Russia AT THE HEIGHT OF THE COLD WAR and then was let back into the country with ease. - During the period where I was reading so much about this I could come up with 200 little facts like this that, by themselves, don't mean much but taken together definately point to something more than a lone nut. I'll break out a couple of the books if this thread lives long enough. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
codeorama Posted March 13, 2003 Author Share Posted March 13, 2003 Originally posted by Brave There is other evidence ... circumstantial if not physical, which make a conspiracy likely in my view. - In the summer of 1963 the FBI surveillance captured a man by the name of James Milteer on tape discussing the fact that an assassination of Kennedy "was in the works" and would take place "from a high-rise building with a rifle." - Jack Ruby's phone records show an increasing amount of calls (don't hold me to this but I believe from Chicago and new Orleans - read Giancana and Marcello) which peaked in the days before the assassination. - Why would Jack Ruby shoot Oswald? - Why would Ruby claim before he died in prison that people in high places would have much to lose if his true story got out? - Look into Oswald and you run into curious fact after fact. Here is an ex-military man who renounced his citizenship and lived in Russia AT THE HEIGHT OF THE COLD WAR and then was let back into the country with ease. - During the period where I was reading so much about this I could come up with 200 little facts like this that, by themselves, don't mean much but taken together definately point to something more than a lone nut. I'll break out a couple of the books if this thread lives long enough. Good post Brave.. I mentioned one or two keys, but there are literally too many to mention... If you look at the list of witnesses that mysteriously died and how they died, that alone would raise suspision... I could go on and on.. There is also the body of Oswald... when the autopsy was done on his body, they sawed his head open and weighed his brain.. then sealed his body in an air tight casket... yet when his body was exhumed, the doctor who performed the "brain weighing" :laugh: sorry, anyway, the doctor noted the air tight casket's seal was broken, and the head of the body in the casket had not been sawed open.. and of course, the dental records matched... Obviously, someone switched the body, or at least the head... The records show the brain was weighed... There is so much more it is ridiculous... it amazes me how none of it is looked into by the government and why they won't release the records, if it was a lone nut, what are they hiding? Why do they black out so many documents? As Brave said, why was Oswald silenced? Why was Ruby silenced? (Ruby claimed that he was injected with something before it was discovered that he developed cancer) ChrisM... good points, I stand corrected...I had never seen that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brave Posted March 13, 2003 Share Posted March 13, 2003 I was also very suspicious that President Kennedy's brain came up missing. The single, most important physical piece of medical evidence after the fact and they LOSE it? The brain could have been examined to determine the direction the bullets came from. This should have been done in the autopsy but, being controlled by the military, it was either directed to not be done or it was done and the results were not disclosed. How could that be allowed to happen? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brave Posted March 13, 2003 Share Posted March 13, 2003 The "Magic Bullet" Theory. I do not have a problem with the angles. I do not have a problem with one bullet causing all those wounds to Kennedy and Connelly. These are thing the "conspiracy buffs" have argued were impossible for years and, quite frankly, I find them very possible. The problem I have is with the pristine condition of the bullet. This thing went in and out of Kennedy, and then in, out, in, out and back into Connelly SHATTERING BONE along the way ... and it ends up conspicuosly laying on a stretcher at Parkland in almost perfect shape. A bullet that hits flesh and organs alone is almost always grossly deformed. I've never heard of a bullet hitting that much material, especially including bone, and not being deformed at all. At least not a normal bullet from a normal gun in the early 60s. I'm no expert, but has anyone else known of another case where anything like this has happened? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
codeorama Posted March 13, 2003 Author Share Posted March 13, 2003 Great Points Brave, Also, there are no prints on the rifle, yet after Oswald is dead, there is a palm print on the gun that wasnt found before... Kilmer put up some good links and after viewing them, I'm like you, I don't have a problem with the angles and all, but remember, that is only one tiny part of the puzzle... I would even agree that parts of the Garrison investagation were out there, but you look at all the parts and something is obviously wrong. The bottom line for me is if Oswald did it alone, why the secrecy, why is the government still not allowing the documents to be viewed and why do they black out everything on the ones they do allow the public to see? Sounds fishy to me... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted March 13, 2003 Share Posted March 13, 2003 The bullet wasn't pristine at all. It was exactly what should have been expected. Here's a pic. http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/ce399.gif Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brave Posted March 14, 2003 Share Posted March 14, 2003 That's a nice picture of the BOTTOM of the bullet, Kilmer. How about giving a link to the whole thing. That is NOT what you would expect a bullet to look like that has done so much damaged to two men. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChrisM Posted March 14, 2003 Share Posted March 14, 2003 Actually it is. The bullet in question is a "solid" which is designed specifically to penetrate tough hide and bone without deforming. Unlike a "softnose" bullet which is designed to expand and "mushroom" to cause maximum wound damage. Its not uncommon to retreived solids from Elephants and Rhinos and such with less damage than this bullet exibits. This would be especially true considering the relative slow velocity of the round Oswald used. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted March 14, 2003 Share Posted March 14, 2003 Use the links I had above. Lot's of info on the bullet as well as other myth breakers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tommy-the-Greek Posted March 14, 2003 Share Posted March 14, 2003 I am probably the nuttiest guy on this board. I have heard both sides of this issue and like some of you have been fascinated by this topic for many years. The Kennedy's made alot of enemies and noone can argue that fact. I don't know if Oswald was the lone shooter or if there were others or whether Oswald even fired a rifle that day. I do believe he was someone's puppet. I want to know who was pulling his strings and why? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AJWatson3 Posted March 14, 2003 Share Posted March 14, 2003 Originally posted by codeorama Also, I forgot to mention.... Kennedy signed the executive order to remove all troops from Vietnam several days before his death... The day after his death, Johnson reversed it and committed more troops to Nam. this was my thought. kennedy was going to listen to his intelligence advisors and pull out. ho was not a puppet of cuba, china, or russia. they had national unification as their primary goal and wanted to be free-- only took a thousand years or so. when we refused to help them defeat the french (ho asked for help from the us gov in the mid 50-s) they had to turn to the only people who would help them-- communists. the red scare had freaked people out, the ones who believed in monolithic communism, and from within the us gov came assasination plot and execution... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
codeorama Posted March 14, 2003 Author Share Posted March 14, 2003 Originally posted by AJWatson3 this was my thought. kennedy was going to listen to his intelligence advisors and pull out. ho was not a puppet of cuba, china, or russia. they had national unification as their primary goal and wanted to be free-- only took a thousand years or so. when we refused to help them defeat the french (ho asked for help from the us gov in the mid 50-s) they had to turn to the only people who would help them-- communists. the red scare had freaked people out, the ones who believed in monolithic communism, and from within the us gov came assasination plot and execution... Good point... I never really understood the fear of "communism", the real fear should have been more with Kruchev (spelling?) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.