Our system detected that your browser is blocking advertisements on our site. Please help support FoxesTalk by disabling any kind of ad blocker while browsing this site. Thank you.
Jump to content
Zingari

JFK , his life and legacy.

By Zingari, in General Chat

Recommended Posts

OzFox

OzFox

Posted
Posted

how anyone can watch that ( frame 313)and insist he was shot from the rear is beyond me

 

That's because your blinkers refuse to let you see the spray of blood and brain that quite clearly goes up and forwards, as well as back. At any rate, (and we've discussed this before) neuro muscular spasm and the "jet effect" can make a gunshot victim go in any direction. In other words I could shoot you from the front right between the eyes and there's no guarantee you'd go flying backwards 

 

"back & to the left"

 

As soon as anyone mentions 'conspiracy theory' it tends to make people roll their eyes.  The Zapruder film is there for everyone to see.  We can speculate on the whos, wheres & whats.......but it begins with 'back & to the left'.

 

See above

Zingari

Zingari

Posted
  • Author
Posted
And the alternative blinkered view of events keeps ignoring the doctor's testimonies that the massive gaping hole at the rear of his head was an exit wound. And it keeps ignoring all the photographic evidence of the crowds running up the hill towards the picket fence and many witnesses that saw gunsmoke from that area.

 

Of course you can just claim a head can fly violently any direction you choose if you want to believe a nice convenient story , but when other evidence contradicts it , then you have to invent more reasons to ignore that too. 

 

You also have to ignore deathbead testimonies of conspiracy involvement .

 

And then ignore Connally's  own testimony on his hospital bed that he was hit by a different bullet and ignore the fact that this version of events was corroborated by his wife Nellie who was actually sitting next to him and as good an eye witness as is possible.( also backed up simply by watching the Zapruder film). The Warren Commission only came up with the single bullet theory "after" it was forced to accept that at least one bullet missed because it hit a kerb and flying concrete hit James Tague..

So they changed the story and came up with with this theory to suit the existing explanation . Why didn't they say one bullet did all the damage originally if they are such thorough investigators with all the "facts"?

 

Doesn't it look like a story that's going to be stuck to no matter what?

 

Oh and of course ignore Cyril Wecht ( warren commission ballistics expert ) too who says the bullet couldn't have done that amount of damage in that condition as more pieces of fragments were removed from Connaly's leg than were were missing from the near pristine magic bullet, because that doesn't fit the pre written script either does it?

 

Of course it can all be dismissed just by saying they all must  have been mistaken or alternatively inventing very highly unlikely alternative explanations 

 

Yeah, OK  a lone nut assassin did it because he wanted the fame and notoriety (although he denied everything  ) 

 

But hey ho . it's more interesting than watching EastEnders  :D  :thumbup:

OzFox

OzFox

Posted
Posted

 

And the alternative blinkered view of events keeps ignoring the doctor's testimonies that the massive gaping hole at the rear of his head was an exit wound. Most of the doctors reported a small entrance wound on the back of the head, and a large gaping wound on the right side above the ear. Funnily enough, this is exactly what you see in the Zapruder film. I assume you're talking about Robert McClelland as a "back of the head" witness? In his Warren Commision testimony it's clear that he didn't get a good look at the back of the head! And this year McClelland said: "He was in terrible shape; the right side of his brain had been blown out." So his testimony has been inconsistent at best

 

And it keeps ignoring all the photographic evidence of the crowds running up the hill towards the picket fence They were following a policeman, Clyde Haygood, who ran up there and many witnesses that saw gunsmoke from that area. Rifles don't produce clouds of smoke. Even Oliver Stone had to fake it with bellows for "JFK"
 
Of course you can just claim a head can fly violently any direction you choose if you want to believe a nice convenient story , I claim it because it happens to be true. Even your forensic pathologist Cyril Wecht admitted as much  but when other evidence contradicts it , then you have to invent more reasons to ignore that too. I haven't seen any evidence to contradict it. It's backed up by video evidence, wound experts, medical experts, ballistics experts and even 'Mythbusters"
 
You also have to ignore deathbead testimonies of conspiracy involvement . who?
 
And then ignore Connally's  own testimony on his hospital bed that he was hit by a different bullet and ignore the fact that this version of events was corroborated by his wife Nellie who was actually sitting next to him and as good an eye witness as is possible. That is a bit odd, I'll grant you that ( also backed up simply by watching the Zapruder film). The Warren Commission only came up with the single bullet theory "after" it was forced to accept that at least one bullet missed because it hit a kerb and flying concrete hit James Tague..
So they changed the story and came up with with this theory to suit the existing explanation . Why didn't they say one bullet did all the damage originally if they are such thorough investigators with all the "facts"? It's Interesting that the magic bullet theory is now accepted since it's been pointed out Connelly was sitting inboard and lower than Kennedy in a jump seat
 
Doesn't it look like a story that's going to be stuck to no matter what? The official explanation is plausible. Most of the conspiracy theories aren't.
 
Oh and of course ignore Cyril Wecht ( warren commission ballistics expert ) too He was one of nine members of the forensic pathology panel. The other 8 didn't share his opinion who says the bullet couldn't have done that amount of damage in that condition as more pieces of fragments were removed from Connaly's leg than were were missing from the near pristine magic bullet, It looks pristine in the side on picture (frequently shown in conspiracy books), but in the end on picture it is clearly flattened and pitted because that doesn't fit the pre written script either does it? Most conspiracy oriented books cherry pick the evidence to fit their agenda, so I'd say the authors are following a pre written script
 
Of course it can all be dismissed just by saying they all must  have been mistaken or alternatively inventing very highly likely alternative explanations fixed
 
Yeah, OK  a lone nut assassin did it because he wanted the fame and notoriety (although he denied everything  ) Well, he would wouldn't he?
 
But hey ho . it's more interesting than watching EastEnders  :D  :thumbup:You're dead right about that :thumbup:

 

Fox92

Fox92

Posted
Posted

Saw a decent documentary on JFK on Sunday night.

 

Showed the moment where JKF Jr salutes JFK's coffin. Remains pretty iconic.

hackneyfox

hackneyfox

Posted
Posted

The JFK assassination is one of those conspiracy theories where you look a crackpot if you don't believe it.

 

Clearly, he was not shot by one gunman, it did not happen how the authorities told it, and it's extremely unlikely Oswald was even in the vicinity at the time of the shooting.

 

And that is from actual proof, hard facts and evidence.

 

Who actually killed him and for what motive is up for debate. But a web of lies it most certainly is.

Check this documentary out, it demolishes the conspiracy theory, well it did for me and I was a believer before I watched it.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qi14A20MJbE

 

Go to 1hr 15 minutes for the magic bullet theory

Zingari

Zingari

Posted
  • Author
Posted

This is quite an interesting interview with Doctor Charles Crenshaw , another surgeon at Parklands who witnessed first hand JFK'S wounds . The picture quality is very poor , but what he says is pretty clear 

 

Obviously he's mistaken though as it contradicts the "true story" 

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SGNMBRq3Kxw

Mike Oxlong

Mike Oxlong

Posted
Posted

As I understand it, he was an IRA sympathiser. Enough said I think.

As I understand it the IRA wasn't a terrorist organisation in the early 1960s so his support for Irish Republicanism has to be viewed in that context.

Vacamion

Vacamion

Posted
Posted

As I understand it, he was an IRA sympathiser. Enough said I think.

 

 

JFK's Dad, Joseph P Kennedy, was the US Ambassador in London at the start of WWII and was recalled because it was considered he was overly friendly towards Nazis and urged the UK to surrender.  He was also suspected of anti Semitism.

 

Now I'm not saying you can blame JFK for his father's politics, but it must be conceded that he wouldn't have got anywhere near the presidency if it wasn't for old Joe's money and influence. 

OzFox

OzFox

Posted
Posted

This is quite an interesting interview with Doctor Charles Crenshaw , another surgeon at Parklands who witnessed first hand JFK'S wounds . The picture quality is very poor , but what he says is pretty clear 

 

Obviously he's mistaken though as it contradicts the "true story" 

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SGNMBRq3Kxw

 

Yes he had a book to sell didn't he? The more controversial the better, and one that was full of easily dismantled conspiracy factoids. In this video he talks about a throat entry wound, yet it's since been established (by McClelland) that neither of them were in the room until after Kennedy had a tracheotomy.

 

After the book came out he was chased up by the New York Times. Crenshaw backed away from his claims said his co-authors "took poetic licence" and that his own role was minor.

 

 

 

Minsk's fond memories of Lee Harvey Oswald

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-24945209

 

Some great pics in there :thumbup:

leicsmac

leicsmac

Posted
Posted

Possible that Oswald was the lone gunman. Don't buy that he was just a lone nut. I think he was backed by someone.

But as for who that someone is...the amount of theories bouncing around obscures things enough that we'll probably never know. Even if clear evidence is presented people will find fault with it.

Jimothy

Jimothy

Posted
Posted

The second most tragic thing to happen in '63.

After the first broadcast of Doctor Who? :ph34r:

Fox92

Fox92

Posted
Posted

I know he was shot multiple times, but whenever I watch back the video it looks like he gets shot from behind before getting shot from an angle.

Zingari

Zingari

Posted
  • Author
Posted

A fairly well balanced article - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-25045277

yes that is a very interesting piece . I don't think there can ever have been a person so written about , but so little actually known.

 

edit;

his 2 best friends even added "johnny we hardly knew you" to their memoirs ( from the folk song) 

 

re-edit

i've had a bit more of a think on what his friends said about him and i think there maybe a more cryptic message ? 

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uPwGrM-oHaM

OzFox

OzFox

Posted
Posted

Bill Newman being interviewed at the spot where he saw JFK assassinated , His testimony is not even included in the Warren Commission for some odd reason

 

very short clip :thumbup:  

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KMThqBR3dLM

 

Impressive. Do you think they were trying to influence the viewer with that rather dramatic music?

 

Having been to Dallas, and found it really boring, it wouldn't surprise me at all if Kennedy was knocked off by the Dallas tourist board to drum up some interest in the place.

 

Now there's a conspiracy theory for ya :D

Zingari

Zingari

Posted
  • Author
Posted

Impressive. Do you think they were trying to influence the viewer with that rather dramatic music?

 

Having been to Dallas, and found it really boring, it wouldn't surprise me at all if Kennedy was knocked off by the Dallas tourist board to drum up some interest in the place.

 

Now there's a conspiracy theory for ya :D

Now that is a new one  :D

 

C'mon Oz , you gotta admit something's not quite right with the official "lone nut assassin line" 

I'm not sure why there was some sort of cover up of the "big event" . It may have even been for the greater good of the world and prevented a global war. We were all a bit scared of the repercussions at the time if Russia /Cuba was involved . It's hard to express how precariously balanced these things were back then. 

 

We are not being told "something", I  doubt I'll ever find out now though . Maybe another 50 years will have to pass  :thumbup:  

 

edit;

it's quite interesting how most if not all the witnesses describe the gunshots as bang..bang ............(long pause).....bang . This in itself is quite revealing in that 3 shots from one rifle would have to have been spread out equally to be made in 6 seconds .( Bill Newman also describes it so in that clip)

 

No doubt you'll dismiss this for some reason though :D   

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...