"Yes, a single bullet, single gunman"

[SaveElmer]

Gerald Posner: Yes, a single bullet, single gunman
Footage from a home movie resolves a controversy over the JFK assassination.

...

Last weekend, a never-before-seen home movie was made public showing President John F. Kennedy's motorcade just before his assassination. An amateur photographer, George Jefferies, took the footage and held onto it for more than 40 years before casually mentioning it to his son-in-law, who persuaded him to donate it to the Sixth Floor Museum in Dallas. The silent 8-millimeter color film was of interest to most people simply because it showed perhaps the clearest close-up of Jacqueline Kennedy taken that morning.

But to assassination researchers, the footage definitively resolves one of the case's enduring controversies: that the bullet wound on Kennedy's back, as documented and photographed during the autopsy, did not match up with the location of the bullet hole on the back of his suit jacket and shirt. The discrepancy has given conspiracy theorists fodder to argue that the autopsy photos had been retouched and the report fabricated.

...

For years, those of us who concluded that the single-bullet theory was sound, still had to speculate that Kennedy's suit had bunched up during the ride, causing the hole to be lower in the fabric than one would expect. Because the holes in the shirt and jacket align perfectly, if the jacket was elevated when the shot struck, the shirt also had to have been raised.

...

The new film has finally resolved the issue. At the end of the clip, as the camera focuses on the backs of the president and First Lady, Kennedy's suit is significantly bunched up, with several layers creased together. Only 90 seconds before Lee Harvey Oswald fired the first shot, Kennedy's suit jacket was precisely in the position to misrepresent the bullet's entry point.

http://www.startribune.com/562/story/1019541.html

[tk2kewl]

1. Well that settles it then.

:eyes:

[IndyOp]

8. May I join you?

:eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes:

[JackRiddler]

115. May I also join your eye-rolling crew?

Why is this triviality worthy of a second thread, after the first nearly identical one here?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x257693#260577

I'll just repeat my response to the original post:

Indeed, there are no credible doubts about the Coup d'Etat of 1963...

And Americans with a brain stopped having any right after they saw a mobster with a fatal disease throw himself at Oswald to kill him in a room full of cops on live TV, so important was it to silence the patsy. Or perhaps for some it took until a Warren Commission member started doubting the magic bullet theory, only to have his plane crash within a few weeks (Hale Boggs). Or perhaps when there was a rash of car fatalities and shotgun suicides involving people who were about to testify to the House assassinations subcommittee in 1975 -- including the Bush family associate George de Mohrenschildt, who had been Oswald's controller in Texas after his return from a US spying mission in Russia (often called a "defection"). Or perhaps after that same committee concluded there were two gunmen. Or perhaps people stopped having doubts on reading about the views of Nixon, Al Haig and White House aide Haldeman on the veracity of the Warren Commission in their statements and memoirs -- but hell, why should THOSE guys know anything?! Posner and McAdams cleared it all up for us, and now we know the Jacket was Bunched. Therefore one bullet caused the seven wounds, cracked the windshield and left fragments around the car, only to show up near-intact on Connally's stretcher at the hospital, amen.

Coup d'Etat, that's what happens in other countries. That's what real historians write about when it happens in other countries. That's what the CIA does in other countries (like in Vietnam about three weeks before the Kennedy job). It's inconceivable in this country. Only conspiracy theorists write about it here.

---

The jacket-bunching in this film is a) 90 seconds before the hit and b) at best one piece of a very large puzzle with regard to the magic bullet, so not an occasion to for the "case closed" crowd to crow. Except for their need to crow on a regular basis, since they represent such a tiny minority of opinion, whether among the people as a whole or the experts in the history and forensics.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

128. That's A Pretty Interesting Discovery That Definitely Needs To Be Taken Into Consideration.

It's no 'nail in the coffin' so to speak, but it's still a new piece of evidence that needs to be weighed with the rest when attempting to make a deduction about what happened.

Why are so many immediately dismissing it? Just because there is new evidence towards one theory doesn't mean that the other one automatically is being threatened. I mean, do people's entire mountain of evidence towards multiple shooters rest upon the foundation of this bunched shirt? If not, then big deal? You still have your mountain, you just have one less piece of circumstantial evidence to rely upon in presenting it. That's life. Doesn't mean the discovery of this now proclaims "that's it! end of story!", so it's a bit confusing that some are treating it as if that's what the evidence is attempting to do.

[TheWatcher]

158. I have said it before and I will day it again.

There are too many Americans that would be literally willing to die in order to save the comfortable, easy to digest, status quo fantasy land they so desperately want to believe, than risk the possibility of facing ANY difficult truth.

Nicholson was right

We Can't Handle The Truth.

And we are going to ALLOW this country to perish without a fight because of our fear of it.

[liberal N proud]

2. But the new film was shot more than a block and a half before the assassination

It still proves nothing about the assassination itself.

[David Zephyr]

150. Exactly.

It proves nothing.

[TheWatcher]

159. Now, Now, don't let logic get in the way of preserving the Status Quo!

Go watch some 24 or Trading Spouses. You'll feel better.

No negative Na-bobs allowed in Pleasantville!

[David Zephyr]

168. I'll post this in my library (the one with eight walls of books)

Wow! One photo and you are an expert on the murder of John Kennedy.

Caution: Your spontaneous keyboarding could lead to the spontaneous combustion of your reputation.

[shadowknows69]

3. You know you could digitally animate the jacket to bunch up

Ok, no I don't know that for sure but any JFK thread deserves at least one tin foil reply. It's tradition.

[MonkeyFunk]

16. it's

not easily to digitally manipulate 8-millimeter film.

[Retrograde]

95. C'mon now,

with all the resources "They" have at their disposal, it would be a piece of cake to take the film, transfer it to DVD, upload it, manipulate it with the ultra-top-secret only-available-to-Them photo-enhancing software, film the result on vintage 8-mm film that They just happened to have stockpiled for such an occasion and "find" it at the appropriate time. Child's play after orchestrating the whole 40+ year conspiracy.

Now where did I put my tin polish? :)

[alcibiades_mystery]

153. ROFL

Great post!

[Virginia Dare]

4. A question for anybody who's seen the film...

I read where it also showed some secret service detail being called off, any truth to it?

[Richard Steele]

14. No. It only shows that an SS agent -was- on the rear bumper 90 seconds before the assassination.

It doesn't show him getting off, or interacting with anyone.

When he got off has been narrowed down to that 90 seconds.
WHY he got off remains unclear.

EDIT: here's a clip from MSNBC with the film:
http://veredictum.smartvideochannel.com/media/playvideo.aspx?f=flash7&cid=144471C7B3B74048A144A8923931D909

[dflprincess]

15. That's in a different film

that I think the BBC released. It shows secret service men being called off the limo before it left Love Field.

[Parche]

5. Posner

Head shot from the front, his head moves back violently, proves that there was a 'gunman'
in front of the motorcade, making the Warren Commission report void.

[Nederland]

112. You need to learn some physics

The motion of the head and the direction of the brain splatter is consistent with a rear shot, not a front shot.

[fla nocount]

6. I've always known that Oswald was just a really good shot

and a pinball wizard.

[Liberal OIF Vet]

7. And I guess...

for 90 seconds, JFK held his body is stasis so that the suit jacket stayed in this "supposed" precis position, huh? And was he not waving and such during this time frame? Would this not have changed his jacket positionas well?

[meegbear]

11. That's what I was thinking too ...

and :party: WELCOME TO DU!! :party:

[Buzz Clik]

9. Tinfoil sales may decrease with that news.

[Liberal OIF Vet]

12. For the life of me,

I would love for someone to tell me how observing the laws of physics is "tin foil" theory. This news proves nothing and is just more "crap" being flung against the wall to see what will stick.

[MonkeyFunk]

18. because

sometimes, people don't understand the physics involved.

Shoot a watermelon, and it will roll TOWARD the shooter.

[Richard Steele]

20. None of the watermelons I've shot have EVER rolled towards me. Quite the opposite, actually.

[Liberal OIF Vet]

22. None of the humans I have seen shot....

Have reacted that way after being shot either. Notice how when JFK was shot in the neck/back how he lurched forward? I guess they conviently ignore this though.

[Liberal OIF Vet]

21. No it wont!

No way....small entance wound. Huge exit wound. The energy goes out of the exit wound. AWAY from the shooter.

[Zynx]

24. Human motions when shot are random.

Bullets do not have enough energy to knock someone in any significant direction. Involuntary muscle reactions, as well as voluntary "omfg I'm hit going down" reactions far outweigh the impact energy of the bullet.

[Liberal OIF Vet]

27. So...

high-velocity rounds have no energy associated with them? Poppy cock!

[Zynx]

33. They have high KE, but very, very low momentum.

Baseball bats have a fraction of the KE (joules) but will easily knock someone around far more than a bullet impact because they have way more momentum.

[Liberal OIF Vet]

35. Well....

I guess some of the Iraqi's I have seen blown away defied your logic then. Because after being shot (with a high-velocity round in the heads mind you), they ALWAYS went in the opposite direction of the shooters. Always.

Try again.

[Zynx]

40. Has nothing to do with the bullet impact. It's not possible.

Your claimed experience does not trump Newton.

[Liberal OIF Vet]

43. Every play pool?

When a ball is hit by the cue, dead on, what direction does the ball that was hit go? Not back to the shooter...best believe that. That is Newton.....

[Liberal OIF Vet]

36. And a bullet travelling at 3,000 meters a second...

Has no momentum?!?!?!?

Wow.

[Zynx]

38. 3,000 meters a second? You know nothing about bullet velocity.

That's not possible. They would literally disintergrate.

And no, bulllets do not have much momentum at all.

[Liberal OIF Vet]

42. Correction

That should have been feet...not meters....

[longship]

51. A couple of points.

First, 3,000 m/sec is much too fast for an average bullet.

Second, a bullet is not an inelastic collision, or an elastic collision. It *penetrates* the body of the target which is precisely what it is designed to do. This means that it must transfer very little of its momentum to the target. So regardless that it has high velocity, body movements (except in Hollywood) are inevitably muscle reaction.

[Liberal OIF Vet]

55. Not true....

A round shot through a rifled bore is actually spiraling. Upon impact, it "tumbles". For instance, a M-16 round, upon impact, tumbles through the body. I have seen instances where someone was shot with a M-16 in the chest and the round exits out somewhere other than the back.

And like I said, that should have been feet not meters.

[longship]

61. JFK was not shot with an M16

Furthermore, at least one of the bullets hit both JFK and Connelly which demonstrates completely that little momentum was lost hitting JFK. The bullets did not tumble in this case.

So, you are wrong here.

[Liberal OIF Vet]

63. So was he shot with a musket?

Not having researched, all rifles are rifled now. Even in 1963. So the round was spiraling and tumbling.

[ewoden]

68. 6.5 mm Carcano

If you ever fired one, and I've owned every US, Asian and European military round in 6.5, you would quickly realize that the very long dimension of the bullet and the extremely efficient sectional density of 6.5 mm projectiles prevents much tumbling even out to a couple of hundred yards, well beyond the range allged in Dallas. they may deviate/deflect of the linera, but they do not tumble until spent, which for such efficient calibres is a good ways out.

[Liberal OIF Vet]

72. Do they tumble upon impact?

I know a 5.56mm sure does.

[ewoden]

76. 5.56 mm is at best 55 to 60 grain bullet.

it is a little, light and inherently instable projectile. The ogive of the round is a weak point. The 5.56 bullet, except whet you get to 70 grainers, are short relative to their diameter, promoting this upset on impact. Military 6.5 mm projectiles are very long relative to diameter, i.e. a superior sectional density to 5.56. This long length of the bullet, coupled with high mass/unit diameter makes for a bullet with great penetration and a much more linear path through the human body. The miracle zig zagging Carcano of the reports on the Kennedy incident have always amused folks shooting mid-velocity 6.5 mm military cartridges.

[Liberal OIF Vet]

78. Gotcha....

But I though even a 7.62mm round tumbles as well. But I do see what you are saying.

[ewoden]

82. Which 7.62 round? You ain't got it yet

If you are talking about 7.63X39, which I wpould suspect you are familiar with from iraq, yes they tumble quite a bit. Designed to do so in fact. The round is 123 grains and is very large in diameter realtive to length and mass. Again a low sectional density which promotes the instability. Moreover, many military 7.62X39 projectiles have a hollow cavity behing the jacket at the tip. It promotes collapse of the point, creating an initial upset of the projectile at the point of impact.

The 6.5 Carcano of Kennedy shooting was a solid cupronickle jacketed round not at all like the 7.62X39 in bullet design.

[Liberal OIF Vet]

84. Ok....I am getting there....

I am not very familiar with the 6.5mm, so that is why I am asking.

[ewoden]

92. If you look at a military 6.5 Caracno round you will see

a bullet that is straight sided with almost a round nose. It travels at moderate velocities. The weight of the bullet is realtively well distributed along the entire length of the bullet.

In contrast a spitzer or boat-tailed spitzed high velocity round like a 5.56 (0.223) is sharp pointed with most of the weight aft of the mid point of the length of the bullet. Striking flesh this casuses the bullet to yaw as the higher mass aft end of the pullet trys to move past the slowed down lighter from end of the bullet. The greater this front to back wight disparity, the shorter the round, and less ridged the construction of the projectile, the more likely it is to yaw, then tumple, then break apart.

With that 7.62X39 you refer too, one can see that the all lead core Yugo rounds are less linearly stable than steel core Russian rounds (greater weight disparatiy frnt to back with denser lead than steel.

A famous 6.5 round was the 6.5 Mannlicher Schoenauer. Used very effectively on elephants. Why? Well full jacketed, long, lead round nosed bullets penetrated elephant skull like no tomorrow. That round is ballistically (internally and terminally), very similar to the Carcano.

[JackRiddler]

116. I love circular reasoning

One of the bullets hit JFK and Connally, which shows that little momentum is lost in penetrating JFK's body, which helps demonstrate my hypothesis that one of the bullets hit JFK and Connally.

[longship]

48. Here's the basic equations.

KE = 1/2 mass * velocity^2

Momentum = mass * velocity

Note the velocity is squared in the energy eqn.

So the ratio of KE/Momentum is 1/2 the velocity to one.

With mass measured in kg, velocity measured in meters/sec, the units of KE will be Joules.

A bullet is low mass but very high velocity. A baseball bat is high mass and lower velocity.

In addition to what Zynx wrote, consider this:

The physics of a bullet hitting a person is much more complex than the baseball bat since it penetrates the body. It imparts significantly less of its momentum to the body of the person. The fact that at least one of the bullets hit both JFK and Connelly it's clear that its momentum could contribute little to moving JFK body.

That's the physics of it.

As others have indicated, body movements from bullet impacts are mostly muscular reactions (except in Hollywood, I suppose, where cars always blow up on impact).

[Liberal OIF Vet]

49. So at the moment the round....

impacts the skull, a nanosecond before the skull is penetrated, there is no momentum shift? Popycock!

And once again, you are assuming a full metal jacketed round. How about expanding your assumption? Explosive rounds and dum dum rounds do not act as full metal jacket rounds.

[longship]

58. I am assuming only that physics works.

The bullet penetrates, as it was designed to do. That means that it must transfer little momentum to the skull. Momentum and its KE are partially dissipated by penetration and tissue damage once penetration occurs. The fact that at least one bullet went through Kennedy and subsequently hit Connelly attests to this fact.

Soft tissue impact == little momentum transfer

Hard tissue impact == some momentum/KE dissipated by tissue damage.

The rest of the momentum carries the bullet through the body.

But look at the momentum equation and consider the difference between a low velocity/high mass baseball bat vs a higher velocity/very low mass bullet. Which one is going to have more effect? Calculate it yourself.

Also, consider that the baseball bat is going to be a classic inelastic collision which will not penetrate.

That's the difference. So, Yes, you are wrong about this.

BTW, it's spelled poppycock.

[Liberal OIF Vet]

62. Once again,

You are ASSUMING that Kennedy and Connely we hit by the same bullet. Once again, you are assuming that the head shot was with standard ammunition.

Is the skull considered hard tissue? I think not.

And I do not buy that getting hit upside the head with a bat would do more kinetic damage than a bullet. Sure the bullet penetrates, but that instant of impact would transfer an immense amount of energy prior to the bullet penetrating, if not for a nanosecond. Point blank, energy would be transferred.

And thanks for the spelling help :)

[longship]

83. Man!? You're mixing energy and momentum here.

A bullet has penetrating power simply because it transfers little momentum to its target. Otherwise you'd have (proportionally) an elastic collision and the bullet would tend to bounce off, or an inelastic collision and the bullet would carry the body back but without penetrating. The latter is what happens when a bullet hits body armor. The momentum is then entirely transferred to the target in a classic inelastic collision and the energy is dissipated by the "work" done in deforming the projectile and as heat.

What you are describing is this inelastic collision which clearly does not happen. The bullet has momentum to carry it through a body *because* it transfers little of its momentum to the target. However, because of it's relatively high velocity (vs mass) it can penetrate the target and do damage along the way.

The physics is really quite simple.

[Liberal OIF Vet]

87. So..lets for a second...

Assume you are right. Shot from the rear, on a downward angle mind you, head jerks violently to the back and to the left. What cause the head to jerk back and to the left as violently as it did?

[longship]

93. Muscles? Or...

It's really simple. It seems to defy common sense, but the physics of this is so simple that it really *cannot* be momentum transfer of the bullet which is using its momentum to penetrate and cause tissue damage.

The actual dynamics are partially that of an inelastic collision as the projectile carries bits of tissue with it. As the projectile carries through the tissue, energy is dissipated and the projectile loses some velocity and momentum, however little is through the mechanism of inelastic collision. This is why the kind of medium speed rounds which were fired on that day were able to exit and do further damage.

The proof is where the bullets were found.

This is why the body movements were likely not related to bullet momentum.

On edit: I'm no forensic pathologist. So, the mechanism could also be the casting off of skull and brain material upon exit. That could provide the necessary impulse to move the head backwards. My field is physics, so you'll have to check with somebody else on this matter.

[Liberal OIF Vet]

96. So...

You his muscles caused that. Now mind you, that his brain, which controls the muscles, was shot to hell. Also, even if you argue that his movement was involuntary, that was involuntary muscle movement that jerk his head like that.

And I debate your physics. Momentum is what causes a bullet to complete its path. Energy is transferred upon impact. Lets say I penetrate the skull with an arrow. The momentum may not carry the arow through. But the energy of the impact would cause the head to jerk away from the shooter. Yes or no?

[longship]

102. Sorry, momentum and energy are related.

The energy lost is directly related to the loss of velocity. This change in energy is exactly the amount of "work" done by the collision.

An arrow is a different type of collision. It's a classic inelastic collision where the projectile and the target become one object at the outcome. This means that the arrow is able to transfer 100% of its momentum to the target.

A bullet that penetrates all the way through a target and subsequently hits another target is not acting like an inelastic collision so that physics is entirely different. You cannot use the inelastic model to solve it. The momentum is *not* dissipated by the collision (which is clear by the fact that the bullet exits and causes further damage). Therefore, any reaction by the target cannot be from the momentum of the bullet.

Here's a site with a full analysis of the head lurch:
http://www.kenrahn.com/JFK/Scientific_topics/Physics_of_head_shot/8-Plausibility.html
Warning, this site contains some pretty graphic descriptions of the physics of a head shot.

[Liberal OIF Vet]

103. Will check it out.....

And please do not misunderstand me. I am not saying 100% of the bullet's energy is dissipated when it strikes the skull. That would not be possible and have the bullet penetrate. What I am saying is SOME of the bullet's energy would dissipate. It has too. It would not go through the skull like it would tissue paper.

Plus my experience have proven to me that the body will react to the amount of force egenrated by a bullet. And that is what you see in Zapruder. Frontal shot from the right, violent head movement to the back and to the left.

[longship]

104. No, I'm cool with your posts.

There are so many questions about what happened that day that we'll always have doubt.

I'm not saying that what I describe is what happened in this case. However, I do not see a physical mechanism by which the bullets fired that day can transfer such momentum to the targets that they would react as some people describe.

[frogcycle]

156. Taking Out Afghanistan Snipers with a 50 cal Rifle

Not - repeat NOT - for the weak of heart

Graphic video. Watch if you have a ghoulish curiosity as to what a 50-cal sniper rifle will do to a human body

Sniper

========================================================================================
Taking Out Afghanistan Snipers with a 50 cal Rifle

Live camera shots of US snipers taking out Taliban with 50 caliber sniper rifles in Afghanistan.

These video shots are not made through the shooter's telescopic sight... they are made looking through the spotter's scope. The spotter lies right next to the sniper and helps the sniper to find and home in on the target.

The sniper is using a 50 caliber rifle. A 50 cal. round is about 7-8 inches long and the casing is about an inch in diameter. The bullet itself is one-half inch in diameter and roughly one and one-half inches long.

Pay close attention to the beginning of the video. A Taliban is laying on top of the peak in front of you... when you hear the shot fired... watch what happens. Our sniper is about a half mile away... or more. It is not known if the sniper team is Marine or Army.

[Liberal OIF Vet]

160. Let some around here tell it, that guy was just doing.....

Involuntary muscle movement. Looks like a lot of energy to me...but what do I know?

[frogcycle]

162. yeah, that's the ticket

they are just twitching

of course a 50cal is like 5 times the diameter of a 6.5 mm. disregarding greater length, that alone is fifteen times the cross-sectional area, and thus at least seventy five times the mass


the debate above over ke and momentum is long on formulae and short on simple facts

leaving out all the constants and such, ke is determined by mass times velocity squared; momentum by mass times velocity

Transfer of momentum and transfer of energy differ, but in both cases the fundamental laws of thermodynamics apply. as long as we're not talking relativity (which we're not), then conservation of momentum and conservation of energy both apply.

When a collision occurs, transfer of both momentum and energy occur, but the net of both after the collision is identical to what it was before the collision.

The mass of the projectile does not change, nor does the mass of the struck object. If the projectile passes through the struck object "cleanly" then it may retain most of its velocity. It is slowed down by friction, which converts some ke to heat, and by the amount of energy required to part the material of the struck object - break molecular bonds and deform material sufficiently to pierce the material. The shape of the projectile and the consistency of the struck object can combine to make this a pretty low amount of energy. In that case, the projectile continues on its way undamaged and only slightly slowed.

If, however, the projectile deforms or breaks up, energy is used in accomplishing that - lots of energy relative to that required to deform/break up the struck material. When it deforms/breaks up, its profile changes, and it can no longer pass through without a LOT of friction. That generates a LOT of heat, and explosive response if there is plenty of material that will vaporize upon heating.

The explosion does not go only in the direction the projectile was traveling. It goes all directions, and will follow a "path of least resistence". To the extent the deformed/broken up projectile transfers its energy of motion by "pushing" the material of the struck object, then the struck object will move in the same direction, possibly angling off somewhat (the billiard ball analogy).

In my view the fact of brain material and skull fragment going toward the back of the car does not necessarily mean the bullet came from the front. The explosion can have blown it back. There is much talk of where in fact exit wounds were, and contradictory autopsy photos, though, so it is pretty hard to reconstruct the event, lacking reliable detailed evidence. It's too easy to "cherry pick" and come up with multiple scenarios. The motion of the overall struck object, however should follow the billiard ball scenario. Much as the Taliban(?) in the video fly AWAY from the shooter, the overall motion of the head and shoulders should be AWAY from the shooter. Again, though, we don't have all the detail in reliable form. Did the driver stomp the gas upon hearing the first shot, causing the head snap that happened to correspond to the second shot? Perhaps it sounds like too "convenient" an explanation, but there was so much going on, so many inputs/outputs, that we can only come up with "most likely' scenarios, and every damned one of them still has questions. I am not a neurologist but I don't buy the "muscle reaction" explanation. The brain was destroyed instantly. Could it have sent a basically random-noise signal to jerk back as part of its demise? Sounds too "convenient" an explanation. Why not a signal to throw your hands up, to leap forward, whatever. The motion of the head, to me, was motion imparted by outside force (bullet, car motion, ??), NOT a spasm of the body.

I asked elsewhere why the headshot was so destructive and the "magic bullet" so "clean". Presumably same ammunition, right? Is the skull sufficiently resistive to initiate deformation/fragmentation, whereas the torso/neck, connolly's torso/rib, hand, and thigh were all sufficiently soft so that bullet just sort of glided to a stop? Also a rather "convenient" explanation of a seeming contradiction. But possible, I suppose.

[ewoden]

46. Um Really?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tj3eTh4Q4ZI

[Buzz Clik]

67. Look at the responses, my friend.

No matter what is said, no matter how much science, conjecture, or pseudo-science is tossed around, the argument never stops. Nor will it ever.

Everyone involved is dead. Forever dead. So, who the hell cares anymore?

[Liberal OIF Vet]

70. Everyone is dead?

Well Mr. Magic-bullet himself is still alive (Arlen Specter). And there are a few of the folks, especially witnesses, who are still here.

[Buzz Clik]

79. Specter was there? In Dallas? Trigger man? Conspirator?

Amazing.

Nothing will knock you guys off this silliness. Nothing.

And don't stop. Objects of ridicule are hard to come by.

[Liberal OIF Vet]

81. No...

He is the one that concoted that nonsensical "magic bullet" theory. So please don't say "all" players are dead. Because they are not.

[Buzz Clik]

88. According to your line of logic, the JFK murder gang will never die.

Every nut case who tosses out yet another jackass theory will become a part of the never-ending legacy.

whooppee.

[Liberal OIF Vet]

91. As long as the

military-insutrial complex is around, that is exactly what I am saying. As long as money is being made off of warfare, lives will mean nothing. And if you don't think thats why JFK was killed, then you believe what you want.

[SaveElmer]

99. JFK assassination conspiracies will never die...too much money at stake...

The JFK assassination industry is now too large, and too many people are making too much money off of it to let it die...

[JackRiddler]

117. Wow... value of a minor cottage industry vs. the military-industrial complex

So what are the total receipts of sales of skeptical JFK assassination-related research in a year? Half a million dollars? A million dollars?

What's the stake of maintaining lone gunman mythology to the corporate media (=hundreds of billions of dollars) who have maintained it for 43 years and would lose (more of) their precious credibility? What's the stake to the military-industrial complex that relies on the mythology that US policy is good and represents democratic will? What's the stake to the still-living beneficiaries in the Bush mob and secret government networks?

Your point has nothing to say about who's right or wrong in the argument. Presumably you can't win the argument, since all you're doing is insulting the other side and imputing motives.

[Virginia Dare]

90. Specter put the seal of approval on the Warren Commission

Report, closing the truth of the JFK assassination off to the American people, much like the 9/11 Commission report did, quite possibly forever.

Whether Oswald was the lone gunman or not, I don't believe for a minute he acted alone.

Ridicule me, call me a loon, whatever, you will never convince me otherwise.

[AngryAmish]

106. "Ridicule me, call me a loon, whatever, you will never convince me otherwise."

With all due respect, that is one of the more disturbing things I have ever seen around here. Is there any level of proof that you would accept that Oswald was the lone gunman? Because if you will not accept proof then it becomes a matter of faith and thus unfalsifiable or unprovable.

If you just meant calling me names alone won't change my mind then I apologize in advance.

[Virginia Dare]

108. No apology necessary...

I didn't say that I didn't believe Oswald was the lone gunman, I said I didn't believe he acted alone. I will never believe he acted alone. I believe there was a conspiracy behind the act, and that there were others involved on some level.

That is one of the most disturbing things you've ever seen around here? Wow, I must really be a nut! :rofl:

[AngryAmish]

109. Well, when one says they can never be convinced otherwise

then one's mind is truly closed.

[Virginia Dare]

110. On this particular point, yes, my mind is closed...n/t

[Virginia Dare]

86. I care...

because I think the events surrounding the JFK assassination in no small part are still effecting the events of today. So, hell yeah, I care.

[Fozzledick]

163. So George Bush Sr. & G. Gorden Liddy are zombies ! ? !

Ah, now it's all beginning to make sense! :eyes:

And I guess that since all the people who died in Vietnam after JFK's order to begin withdrawal was reversed by LBJ are (presumably) still dead they don't care either.

[Wapsie B]

10. All I know is

that seeing Posner on tv makes my b.s. detector go off big time. But someone has to be the modern-day shill for the establishment. I'm sure he's been well taken care of.

[Virginia Dare]

34. On the heels of Poppy gloating over the Warren Commission..

at Ford's funeral. All of a sudden we're getting all this "new evidence" supporting the official C.T. that there was no C.T. :eyes:

It doesn't really matter to me whether Oswald was the lone shooter or not, I will not be convinced that the entire truth behind the JFK assassination has been publicly uncovered.

[Wapsie B]

45. To me, if there's nothing to hide

open the files. Show us everything. I won't be convinced either until that time. Blind obedience and acceptance went out a long time ago. Well, for non-repugs that is.

[Octafish]

140. BINGO!

Haldeman said Nixon used "The Bay of Pigs Thing" as code for the assassination of President John F. Kennedy.

Nixon and his aide discuss the matter below, in what historians refer to as "The Smoking Gun Tape" that got Nixon to resign the presidency.

Haldeman: okay -that's fine. Now, on the investigation, you know, the Democratic break-in thing, we're back to the-in the, the problem area because the FBI is not under control, because Gray doesn't exactly know how to control them, and they have, their investigation is now leading into some productive areas, because they've been able to trace the money, not through the money itself, but through the bank, you know, sources - the banker himself. And, and it goes in some directions we don't want it to go. Ah, also there have been some things, like an informant came in off the street to the FBI in Miami, who was a photographer or has a friend who is a photographer who developed some films through this guy, Barker, and the films had pictures of Democratic National Committee letter head documents and things. So I guess, so it's things like that that are gonna, that are filtering in. Mitchell came up with yesterday, and John Dean analyzed very carefully last night and concludes, concurs now with Mitchell's recommendation that the only way to solve this, and we're set up beautifully to do it, ah, in that and that...the only network that paid any attention to it last night was NBC...they did a massive story on the Cuban...

Nixon: That's right.

Haldeman: thing.

Nixon: Right.

Haldeman: That the way to handle this now is for us to have Walters call Pat Gray and just say, "Stay the hell out of this...this is ah, business here we don't want you to go any further on it." That's not an unusual development,...

Nixon: Um huh.

Haldeman: ...and, uh, that would take care of it.

Nixon: What about Pat Gray, ah, you mean he doesn't want to?

Haldeman: Pat does want to. He doesn't know how to, and he doesn't have, he doesn't have any basis for doing it. Given this, he will then have the basis. He'll call Mark Felt in, and the two of them ...and Mark Felt wants to cooperate because...

Nixon: Yeah.

Haldeman: he's ambitious...

Nixon: Yeah.

Haldeman: Ah, he'll call him in and say, "We've got the signal from across the river to, to put the hold on this." And that will fit rather well because the FBI agents who are working the case, at this point, feel that's what it is. This is CIA.

Nixon: But they've traced the money to 'em.

Haldeman: Well they have, they've traced to a name, but they haven't gotten to the guy yet.

Nixon: Would it be somebody here?

Haldeman: Ken Dahlberg.

Nixon: Who the hell is Ken Dahlberg?

Haldeman: He's ah, he gave $25,000 in Minnesota and ah, the check went directly in to this, to this guy Barker.

Nixon: Maybe he's a ...bum.

Nixon: He didn't get this from the committee though, from Stans.

Haldeman: Yeah. It is. It is. It's directly traceable and there's some more through some Texas people in--that went to the Mexican bank which they can also trace to the Mexican bank...they'll get their names today. And pause)

Nixon: Well, I mean, ah, there's no way... I'm just thinking if they don't cooperate, what do they say? They they, they were approached by the Cubans. That's what Dahlberg has to say, the Texans too. Is that the idea?

Haldeman: Well, if they will. But then we're relying on more and more people all the time. That's the problem. And ah, they'll stop if we could, if we take this other step.

Nixon: All right. Fine.

Haldeman: And, and they seem to feel the thing to do is get them to stop?

Nixon: Right, fine.

Haldeman: They say the only way to do that is from White House instructions. And it's got to be to Helms and, ah, what's his name...? Walters.

Nixon: Walters.

Haldeman: And the proposal would be that Ehrlichman (coughs) and I call them in

Nixon: All right, fine.

Haldeman: and say, ah...

Nixon: How do you call him in, I mean you just, well, we protected Helms from one hell of a lot of things.

Haldeman: That's what Ehrlichman says.

Nixon: Of course, this is a, this is a Hunt, you will-that will uncover a lot of things. You open that scab there's a hell of a lot of things and that we just feel that it would be very detrimental to have this thing go any further. This involves these Cubans, Hunt, and a lot of hanky-panky that we have nothing to do with ourselves. Well what the hell, did Mitchell know about this thing to any much of a degree?

Haldeman: I think so. I don 't think he knew the details, but I think he knew.

Nixon: He didn't know how it was going to be handled though, with Dahlberg and the Texans and so forth? Well who was the asshole that did? (Unintelligible) Is it Liddy? Is that the fellow? He must be a little nuts.

Haldeman: He is.

Nixon: I mean he just isn't well screwed on is he? Isn't that the problem?

Haldeman: No, but he was under pressure, apparently, to get more information, and as he got more pressure, he pushed the people harder to move harder on...

Nixon: Pressure from Mitchell?

Haldeman: Apparently.

Nixon: Oh, Mitchell, Mitchell was at the point that you made on this, that exactly what I need from you is on the--

Haldeman: Gemstone, yeah.

Nixon: All right, fine, I understand it all. We won't second-guess Mitchell and the rest. Thank God it wasn't Colson.

Haldeman: The FBI interviewed Colson yesterday. They determined that would be a good thing to do.

Nixon: Um hum.

Haldeman: Ah, to have him take a...

Nixon: Um hum.

Haldeman: An interrogation, which he did, and that, the FBI guys working the case had concluded that there were one or two possibilities, one, that this was a White House, they don't think that there is anything at the Election Committee, they think it was either a White House operation and they had some obscure reasons for it, non political,...

Nixon: Uh huh.

Haldeman: or it was a...

Nixon: Cuban thing-

Haldeman: Cubans and the CIA. And after their interrogation of, of...

Nixon: Colson.

Haldeman: Colson, yesterday, they concluded it was not the White House, but are now convinced it is a CIA thing, so the CIA turn off would...

Nixon: Well, not sure of their analysis, I'm not going to get that involved. I'm (unintelligible).

Haldeman: No, sir. We don't want you to.

Nixon: You call them in.

Nixon: Good. Good deal! Play it tough. That's the way they play it and that's the way we are going to play it.

Haldeman: O.K. We'll do it.

Nixon: Yeah, when I saw that news summary item, I of course knew it was a bunch of crap, but I thought ah, well it's good to have them off on this wild hair thing because when they start bugging us, which they have, we'll know our little boys will not know how to handle it. I hope they will though. You never know. Maybe, you think about it. Good!

**********

Nixon: When you get in these people when you...get these people in, say: "Look, the problem is that this will open the whole, the whole Bay of Pigs thing, and the President just feels that" ah, without going into the details... don't, don't lie to them to the extent to say there is no involvement, but just say this is sort of a comedy of errors, bizarre, without getting into it, "the President believes that it is going to open the whole Bay of Pigs thing up again. And, ah because these people are plugging for, for keeps and that they should call the FBI in and say that we wish for the country, don't go any further into this case", period!

Haldeman: OK

Nixon: That's the way to put it, do it straight (Unintelligible)

Haldeman: Get more done for our cause by the opposition than by us at this point.

Nixon: You think so?

Haldeman: I think so, yeah.

SOURCE

http://www.watergate.info/tapes/72-06-23_smoking-gun.shtml

I wonder what the tape on which the 18-minute gap occurs discussed? Stuff around that time centered on the role of the Watergate plumbers, many of whom were veterans of failed CIA, er, Cuban exile invasion at The Bay of Pigs.

[Liberal OIF Vet]

13. Also...

No one denies that he wasn't shot from the rear. So how is this "news"? I truly believe he was shot from the back, possibly by LHO. But the head shot did not come from the rear. No way. Now how. Did. Not. Happen.

[nebenaube]

17. Yeah, magic

Now somebody explain a certain individual's reaction to the movie a certain movie while in office and dat state - ment made during clumsy's funeral. Don't most, if not all, player's eventually expose themselves?

[bighughdiehl]

19. I wonder how many people will buy this?

This film doesn't say a damn thing about the shot from the front clearly visible in the Zapruder film-single bullet theory bullshit aside, of course. Like Liberal OIF Vet, I am amused and alarmed that when people point out basic physics that no one disputes otherwise, they are suddenly accused of promoting "conspiracy theories". Orwellian doublethingk at its finest. I also wonder who the fuck Posner has been shilling for, but then again some people are brainwashed enough to just regurgitate this bullshit.

[Zynx]

23. "Physics" disputing the shot came from behind are garbage.

I lose respect for people when they claim that their "expertise" tells them the shot came from the front. If you know anything at all about bullets, that's simply not possible.

The President doesn't have a special bubble around him that makes him behave any differently than any other target when he's shot.

Simply put, in the real world, entry wounds are almost invisible and exit wounds are the explosive ones.

[Liberal OIF Vet]

26. Well I do know a tad bit about ballistics....

And I am calling shenanigans to the whole "being shot in the head, on a downward angle, causes the head to jerk, violently, to the back and to the left" crowd. It is utter nonsense. So I guess when Jackie was reaching "for his freaking skull" on the trunk, she was lying, huh? How can the skull be on the trunk on a rearward shot? it can't.

Try again.

[Zynx]

30. Bullet alone can't move his head that much, period.

The far more important fact for determining where the shot came from is that the entire right front section of his head is blown out, with not even comporable, let alone greater, damage on the back of his head.

There is no weapon in existance that will do that other than a point-blank shotgun, which is clearly not the case here, as there's no one standing within arms length of the limo firing at Kennedy's head.

[Liberal OIF Vet]

32. Ever hear of...

dum dum rounds? How about explosive rounds? Think they ca't do that kind of damage? Think again.

[Zynx]

37. Entry wound is still bullet diameter.

Dum-dum expansion is post-impact. It would still blow out the other side of his head, not the impact point.

Shooting Kennedy with some sort of anti-armor explosive round would have just blown his head completely off. Damage wouldn't be remotely limited to that one section of his head.

[Liberal OIF Vet]

39. Well....

Looking at the Zapruder film (not the autopsy photos because I will go to my grave not believing those), it sure seems to me that the right side of his head WAS blown off....but thats just me....

[Richard Steele]

69. Yes, and the large EXIT wound was on the REAR of JFK's skull. End of story.

[JackRiddler]

118. Oops. How dare you point this out?

You and six doctors who saw the body, all of them in filmed testimony indicating a large exit wound at the back of the head.

The lying shits!

[Liberal OIF Vet]

119. They weren't lying.....

They were "conspiray nuts" who were wearing their tin foil hats during the examination. :)

[H2O Man]

126. Checkmate.

It amazes me that people are so invested in trying to peddle the utter nonsense that the final shot came from behind. I've noted in a few of these threads that in his book "Man of the House," Tip O'Neill tells of how he used to accept the Warren Commission's report until 1968, when he had lunch with Kenny O'Donnell and Dave Powers. They were in Dallas behind JFK that day, and they both were sure that two shots came from the Grassy Knoll. They told Tip that the FBI investigators pressured them to knowingly lie about what they witnessed. (page 211) I am familiar with investigations, and I can say without any chance of being wrong that in any investigation where witnesses are pressured to knowingly lie -- even "for the good of the country" -- that investigation is not seeking the truth.

[bighughdiehl]

29. His head......

flung backwards.....he was shot from the front, in addition to the other shot through his back.

[razors edge]

113. Doesen't a high velocity create a low pressure?

Wouldn't a bullet exiting and removing part of the object it hit at a high velocity create a vacuum and pull the remaining object in the direction of the lowered pressure in a venturi effect?

[Initech]

25. I still think it all points to George HW Bush.

The more I read about how evil the Bush family is, and all the evidence on the JFK assassination, the more I keep thinking that he was the man behind the trigger.

[Richard Steele]

41. The only man on earth who has claimed he DOESN'T remember where he was...

...when he heard the news that JFK had been shot.

Seems like a very ODD claim for anyone to make. Even
ODDER in light of the fact that we KNOW where he was
that morning- he was in Dallas.

Things that make you go "Hmmmmm....."

[Virginia Dare]

54. Another odd coincidence..

is the connection between the Bush's and John Hinckley Jr. The two families were neighbors and apparently at the very least ran in the same social circles.

Name me any other person in the justice system accused of attempted assassination that is allowed time outside of jail to visit family.

[Initech]

105. Another one...

Nobody really knows the exact purpose of the company that Bush ran, the Zapata Off Shore Oil Company. Most people suspect that it was a CIA front.

Oh, and add to that fact the coincidence that he reported evidence of Kennedy's assassination to the CIA TWO DAYS after it happened!

Now who would have access to that kind of information?

[Virginia Dare]

107. The epitomy of evil...

I get so damned angry every time I think about all of the damage that family has done to this country and the world. There is absolutely nothing they wouldn't do for money and power. :grr:

[Javaman]

28. One simple reason why I will never believe the single shooter theory...

because an autopsy wasn't done on JFK. His body was rushed through the process and until the body is dug up and an proper autopsy is done. I will always believe that there was at least a second shooter.

[Liberal OIF Vet]

31. Well that...

and his goddamned brain is MISSING! You think his brain could definitively prove the directions of the shot?

[Javaman]

71. Sigh. it's skull fragments that determine the angle of the shot. nt

[Doc_Technical]

44. I recall another theory.

This was about twenty years ago, someone

(book author?) put forth the idea that JFK was

shot by a secret service who was riding "shotgun"

in the limo. When he heard a shot, he reached for a

shortened M-16 rifle and accidentally shot JFK in the

head. This explains the severe wound and the backward

reaction of JFK after being shot.

Sorry, I don't recall the author's name or exactly when

this theory was revealed.

[Liberal OIF Vet]

47. They got this theory from a photo.

There is a photo of a SS agent turning around and looking at JFK. They claim that their is a shiny object in his hand.

[SaveElmer]

50. It is clear to me...

1. That he was shot from behind in the head...it is clear the point of impact was behind, and as it exploded out the front cause him to move backwards...entry wounds do not cause that kind of damage...

2. That Posner has formulated the most logical argument and the one best supported by the evidence...

[Liberal OIF Vet]

53. And it is clear to me...

That you are wrong and that Posner is wrong. How can a good chunk of his skull be on the trunk if he was shot in the back of the head? Please explain that.

[SaveElmer]

56. Physics...

The car was moving forward...he was shot, portions of his skull were blown off into the air as the car moved under them...

[Liberal OIF Vet]

57. So...

you will acknowledge the physics of the car moving, but deny the physics of being shot from the front would make the head go away from the shooter?

And I guess those folks that saw/heard the shot from the front-right were hallucinating as well?

[SaveElmer]

59. A shot from the front...

Would not cause the kind of damage to the front of the skull that occurred...it simply does not happen...entry wounds make approximately bullet sized holes, exit wounds make large gaping wounds...

In this case the small hole was in back, the large hole in front...

[Liberal OIF Vet]

65. so....

The small hole was in the back according to what? The "autopsy" photos? How about the Zapruder footage? How about how he jerked FORWARD when shot in the neck/back? So he could only jerk forward on the back sot, but not from the head shot?

[SaveElmer]

74. Yes the autopsy photos...

That his head jerked back at the head shot is easily explained as the pressure from inside his skull was released in a spray moving forward causing his head to move back...a well known phenomenon with gunshot wounds to the head. He was also wearing a backbrace so as the muscles in his abdomen relaxed he fell backward...

[Liberal OIF Vet]

75. Ahhh...the old jet/rocket effect

So the contents of his head had that much pressure that would cause his head to jerk to the back and to the left?

I wonder what happens in the operating room when a surgeon pierces the skull? The whole operating room must be splattered with brain and skull.... *sarcasm*

[SaveElmer]

77. If a bullet were flying through the brain...

At supersonic speeds at that point of course it would...

I can see you are invested in denying what the evidence plainly shows...in phenomenon that are well known and documented...and I have no desire to try to convince you otherwise...

I was asked my opinion and I gave it...

I have seen nothing here or in any of the books or articles I have read that offer an explanation even as close to compelling as that by Posner...

[Liberal OIF Vet]

80. So the same suspersonic bullet...

Would not transfer any energy to the head? It would go through the head like it would go through toilet paper?

If he were shot through the back of the head, he would have ended up in the front seat....

[SaveElmer]

85. Right...

So what you are telling me is a bullet strikes the front of his head, blowing the skull off, and then leaves this nice little bullet sized hole in the back...?

No damage to it as it impacts his skull and shreds his brain...

Get real

[Liberal OIF Vet]

89. You are pressopsing that

the autopsy pics are real.....the Parkland docs (who initially treat the wound) describe a wound totally different than the autopsy photos. Were they mistaken or lying? They described a small entrance wound in the FRONT of the head and a large exit wound in the BACK of his head. These doctors were not novice emergency room docs either.

So that coupled with the Zapruder film discounts the "autopsy" photos.

[SaveElmer]

94. Yeah I knew that was coming...

Because if they are not fake that blows your entire delusion out of the water...

When you have some compelling evidence that they are fake, and you have some explanation for how the fakes were created in such a short period of time using 1960's technology...then come back...

[Liberal OIF Vet]

97. And when you have

Some compelling evidence to counter physics, Parkland doctors who saw the wound and the Zapruder film, then please feel free to to shove it down my throat.

[SaveElmer]

98. The physics have been well explained...

And are supported by the evidence...that you choose to deny them is your issue...not mine...

[Liberal OIF Vet]

100. No...the physics have not been explained

No one is going to tell me that a metal bullet travelling in excess of 1500mph is going to hit a skull and not transfer some of that energy to the skull, whether it penetrates the skull or not. I have seen head shots and I know differently than what is being expounded here.

[ewoden]

73. Entries that are not near . . .

a tangent to the surface of the skull create nice little entry holes. Get closer to a tangent to the skull surface and you blow off big chunks.

[ProfessorGAC]

64. If I Were to Agree 100% With You. . .

. . .i would suspect my own judgment if i found myself in agreement with Posner. He's a serious dumbass, and if says A, i'll figure it must be B. I wouldn't trust him to tell me it's raining.
The Professor

[ProfessorGAC]

52. If Posner's Sure, That Arouses Even More Suspicions

In fact, if i really 100% believed in the lone gunman, i would rethink it if Posner agreed with me.

He's dumber than dirt.
The Professor

[GoneOffShore]

60. Popcorn and tinfoil hats anyone?

My, we're easily distracted, aren't we?


:rofl:
:popcorn:

[treestar]

66. How could such a thing on such a subject sit around unnoticed for 43 years?

[frogcycle]

101. this thread makes my head hurt

[kiahzero]

111. There's a show that plays on Discovery every now and again.

They recreated the shot Oswald took using ballistics gel and bones. The injuries to both JFK and the governor in front of him matched the experimental results.

[Liberal OIF Vet]

114. I suppose....

That if I assume Oswald was the shooter, I could recreate all matter of evidence to make it soo.....

[kiahzero]

120. There were no assumptions made.

The experiment was to determine if the scenario described in the Warren Commission report was possible, and if so, how closely the experimental shot matched the report of the injuries sustained by the victims.

If you want to assume that the wounds reported were different than the wounds sustained, naturally, you'll be unconvinced by this experiment, but it lays to rest the myth that it would take a "magic bullet" for Oswald to cause all of the injuries in question.

[razors edge]

121. I remember this show

They had computer reenactments that showed the bullet traveling through JFK, tumbling a little and them going jig saw on Connelly.

Shattering bone and falling out in pristine condition after that is different than shooting a bullet into a milled wood 4X4 or ballistic gel.

As I remember they showed the bullet could endure all these staged conditions individually and come out looking OK, but the test did not show shooting through all the different conditions encountered that day in a single shot.

I don't consider that proof of the SBT.

[kiahzero]

122. You're obviously thinking of a different show.

In this one, they fired a single shot into gel molds created to match JFK and the governor, and not only did the wounds match the wounds that the two suffered, but the bullet was in similar condition.

If you want to hold beliefs that fly in the face of the experimental data, that's fine, but don't pretend that you're not doing just that.

[razors edge]

124. "experimental data"

showed the earth to be flat for centuries, so if you are willing to base all your beliefs of this don't fool yourself, you are being led by those who put forward those theories.

Short of cadavers in this situation I can't buy it.

I've dug enough slugs out of a deer's carcase to convince me that lead deforms when it hits bone.

I was born six months after he died and I really have no dog in this fight, I just trust my own experience over that of a staged event.

Did they tell how many bullets it took to get the results they touted or claim they got it on the first attempt?

If they got it on the first attempt did they repeat the experiment to demonstrate reproducibility?

That is what you do when you conduct an experiment and make extraordinary claims is it not?

Edit: correct bad typing skills

[kiahzero]

127. Oh, please.

You've got the flat-earthers comparison entirely backwards.

If you want to watch the thing, here's a link: http://shopping.discovery.com/product-56798.html?jzid=40587982-0-0

[razors edge]

129. Posting a link is easier

than answering the questions?

I'll watch it but as a hunter who loads his own Remington 300 ultra mag loads, as well as many others, I can tell you, no two rifles are the same, no two bullets are the same, no two powder loads are the same, no two primers are the same, no two cartridges are the same, and no two shots taken will ever be the same.

In the time it takes to reset the simulated targets the atmospheric pressure changes will make the bullet land in a different spot. But go ahead and ignore all that for now and just answer the previous questions and save us all a lot of time. If you like I can post links to all my reloading page info in about twenty minutes and you can determine for yourself if you believe that the ballistics can be duplicated, ever.

[kiahzero]

130. Which is why they did as well as theyh could.

Given that it aired about five months ago, I'm not going to try and recollect how many shots they took (nevermind the false dilemma that you're trying to set up; if I say that they took several, you'll say "Oh, they just cherry-picked the data," and if I say they took one, you'll say "Oh, they just got lucky").

Edit: Here's the Wikipedia summary of the show:
A Discovery Channel special Unsolved History: JFK — Beyond the Magic Bullet attempted to replicate, as well as possible, the conditions of that day. The participants set up blocks of ballistics gel with a substance similar to human bone inside. These studies showed that largely undeformed bullets were possible to produce, if they were slowed by a passage though a tissue-like substance before striking bone. Next, two mannequin figures made of ballistic anatomical substances (animal skin, gelatin, and interior bone-like cast) were set up in the exact relative position of JFK and Connally. A marksman, from a distance equal to that of the sixth floor of the book depository building, fired the same rifle model found in the Book Depository, using a round from the same batch of the same "Western Case Cartridge Company" 6.5x52 mm ammunition purchased with the surplus Carcano weapon in early 1963 (and three expended brass and one live round from which, had been found with the Carcano, in the book depository Nov. 22, 1963). The path of their single bullet (followed by high speed photography) duplicated, almost exactly, the wounds suffered by the victims that day, the only difference being that the bullet did not quite have enough energy to penetrate the "thigh" substance in front of the Connally figure, due to striking an extra bone in the "rib" model (i.e., it fractured 2 ribs in the model vs. one rib in Connally). It was also slightly more deformed than CE 399, possibly for the same reason. However, this bullet came close enough to duplicating all wounds in both men with a single shot, with a bullet having little deformation. Thus the theory, while technically improbable, was proved to be much more plausible than previously thought <26>.

[razors edge]

131. Thus the theory, while technically improbable,

was proved to be much more plausible than previously thought

The devil is in the details now isn't it?

I qualified expert for four years running while in the marines, I never scored below a 237.

Shooting is not a mathematical thing, it is art.

I can have a good time dropping 200 rounds at beer cans from my AR or AK, but placing a round on target is not as easy as people think.

There are days I can nail a beer can from 100 yards every time with iron sights from my AR and days I cant.

Short of spending countless hours researching the best load for a rifle, actually going out and tracking down the materials and assembling them then going to a safe location to test your labor, check FPS from a Chrono, compare to that to charts etc, its is impossible to appreciate the how the smallest change can give a huge difference in results.

My experience, and I would guess anyone here on DU who shoots, will say there is no way to reproduce the results and therefore no way to prove them.

[kiahzero]

135. The point is that they reproduced the shot.

They mimicked the conditions to the best of their ability (and it was really interesting to watch, actually), and the result was a series of wounds that matched those sustained by the victims. The other explanations don't seem to fit the available evidence. Thus, unless new evidence is unleashed that casts doubt on the current theory, it's unreasonable to believe that it would take a "magic bullet" to reproduce the wounds.

[razors edge]

137. OK

Let me set you up behind my 300 ultra mag, a much better rifle than Oswald's, and see if you can cycle the bolt and acquire the target in the time recorded by audio tape. If you can't cycle and aim in the time alloted you can't hit the target that day.

Did anyone ever address where he sighted in the rifle? You can't buy a rifle, strap on a scope and go hit something without scoping it in. where did he test fire the weapon and set the scope?

I have sighted and fired mine many times and short of knowing the distance to target anticipated, scope settings do not equal out to setting the cross hairs and hitting the target. bullet drop is a bitch.

He had no spotter so the miss that nicked the guy on the street far down range, even if he had been able to see the strike point, would not have given him a reference point to adjust fire on a closer target, bullet drop is a bitch.

It unreasonable to believe that mimicking a high power rifle rounds trajectory can reproduce the results.

But hey you saw it on TV and I'm sure you know more about ballistics than I do.

Did you see that program on TV about Saddam's nukular weapons?

[kiahzero]

143. Again, you've got your analogies backwards.

That's a nice trick, turning my general apathy towards the issue and the fact that I can't recreate every nuance of a two-hour show I watched five months ago into an accusation that I'm a gullible fool that believes everything put before him.

If you want to persist in your thinking that the wounds were caused by multiple bullets, feel free. I don't care.

[razors edge]

147. Forgive me

but i do not see analogies I made in the post you responded to.

Please clarify for a high school drop out.

[razors edge]

155. Where did I say anything about

multiple bullet wounds?

When do you trust the opine of someone with a general apathy on a subject to present credible input on a given subject?

If you wish to persist in your thinking that the wounds were caused by a single bullet, feel free. I don't care

[alcibiades_mystery]

154. So then it's also not valid to say the shot was IMPOSSIBLE, right?

I love your constant rendition of your personal experience. I really do. It proves nothing, but it provides a nice narrative. Here's my personal experience: I've never fired a firearm of any kind in my life. Not once. And that doesn't matter a whit. The problem with your argument is not your expertise in forearms (clearly superior), but your failure to follow the logical conclusions of your own argument.

You are arguing here that any reproduction of the "magic bullet" shot under "similar" conditions would prove nothing, since every shot is different. In other words, one can't come to any conclusions about any particular shot through scientific processes of replication. Shots are singular. They don't lend themselves to replication. Fine. Supposing I buy that, it leads to two necessary consequences.

The first is your argument: the scientific reproduction of the magic bullet's trajectory is meaningless, because every shot is different.

The second is the one you've apparently chosen to ignore, probably because it violates your ideological conviction: Any FAILURE to reproduce the magic bullet's trajectory is also meaningless, because every shot is different.

You've just successfully kicked a leg out from beneath one of the primary platforms of the conspiracy theorists. They say "There's no way a bullet could have done that and remained so close to intact! Impossible! It's a 'magic bullet," the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American public, etc., etc. Nobody has EVER managed to replicate that shot, or the trajectory of the bullet!" To this argument, you would surely say: You're wrong. We cannot know whether the trajectory was possible or impossible, because every shot is different! You would surely stand up for your "singularity" thesis of bullets even against people who thought there was a conspiracy, right?

[razors edge]

157. I like the way you think,

"You are arguing here that any reproduction of the "magic bullet" shot under "similar" conditions would prove nothing, since every shot is different. In other words, one can't come to any conclusions about any particular shot through scientific processes of replication. Shots are singular. They don't lend themselves to replication. Fine."

You have just conceded the fact that a conspiracy to dissuade the public took place in the airing of disinformation.

"The first is your argument: the scientific reproduction of the magic bullet's trajectory is meaningless, because every shot is different."

No argument here.

"The second is the one you've apparently chosen to ignore, probably because it violates your ideological conviction: Any FAILURE to reproduce the magic bullet's trajectory is also meaningless, because every shot is different."

No argument here.

You've just successfully kicked a leg out from beneath one of the primary platforms of the conspiracy theorists. They say "There's no way a bullet could have done that and remained so close to intact! Impossible! It's a 'magic bullet," the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American public, etc., etc. Nobody has EVER managed to replicate that shot, or the trajectory of the bullet!" To this argument, you would surely say: You're wrong. We cannot know whether the trajectory was possible or impossible, because every shot is different! You would surely stand up for your "singularity" thesis of bullets even against people who thought there was a conspiracy, right?

Can you point me towards one of those people so I can see what they are saying?

I can place a paper target in front of a piece of plate steel and prove that even the best sniper won't put the round through exact same hole two shots in a row, I don't care if they weld the barrel to a tank but it will still impact the same plate steel behind the target and leave a second mark on the target.

I can deform the round of your choice on that plate steel as many times as you like and show you bullets with similar deformation on every round, they will not be identical but the deformation will be highly reproducible.

A pristine bullet is a negative deformation.

Can you prove a negative?

Has anyone ever reproduced a similar round fired through anything but a highly controlled receptor?

Edit: A receptor designed to not deform the bullet.

[alcibiades_mystery]

161. Ay yay yay...

"You are arguing here that any reproduction of the "magic bullet" shot under "similar" conditions would prove nothing, since every shot is different. In other words, one can't come to any conclusions about any particular shot through scientific processes of replication. Shots are singular. They don't lend themselves to replication. Fine."

You have just conceded the fact that a conspiracy to dissuade the public took place in the airing of disinformation.

I may or may not believe that. I certainly did not "concede" that point in the text you referenced above, which was focused solely on describing YOUR argument and belief system as they appeared in the previous posts. The sentences you reference make no claim about the world at all, outside of YOUR belief system. Very strange misreading there Diktatr.


Can you point me towards one of those people so I can see what they are saying?

ROFL. Yes. YOU. In the sentences that follow that question!

Has anyone ever reproduced a similar round fired through anything but a highly controlled receptor?

According to YOUR theory, every single shot is different, so we would have no way of knowing whether another round on another occasion would produce a close-to-pristine bullet! Either own your position, or do not own it. You're just being inconsistent.

[razors edge]

142. I'm watching History Channel right now,

They got Randy "Duke" Cunningham on and for some reason they haven't mentioned his little problem with bribes and hookers.

They wouldn't have a problem with accuracy now would they?

[kiahzero]

144. Maybe that's because the show is called "Dogfights: The Greatest Air Battles?"

Could you explain what the hell his actions in Congress have to do with a firefight years ago?

[razors edge]

145. Discredited liar.

My job in the Marines was F-4 Phantom hydraulics technician, VMFA 212 on aircraft mechanic, Kaneohe Bay HI, 81-85.

That POS has accepted bribes that have killed our troops and the so called History Channel continuing to show this man as a hero only shows the level of information they propagate is centered around continuing a myth.

[razors edge]

139. How did I get it backwards?

Explorers gave the data to the powers that be and the data was manipulated for the power's benefit, disinformation was the result.

[Bucky]

149. Did they use prison volunteers for reenacting the shooting?

Cause if they used illegal aliens to play Kennedy and Connoly, I would very offended. Those jobs belong to Americans!

[cgrindley]

123. No sane person doubts the Warren Commission

come on. The whole who shot Kennedy conspiracy is asinine. Get over it.

That sad loner killed that nice young president. Then that other idiot killed him. END OF STORY.

[Warren DeMontague]

134. Yeah, only insane people doubt obvious fairy tales.

That nice scarecrow, friendly tin man, and cowardly lion helped the little girl in the blue dress after her house fell on the witch. END OF STORY.

[Liberal OIF Vet]

136. And no sane person gives the....

Warren Commission any credance. It was a sham from beginning to end. It presupposed a rear shot and built everything from that, discount a SHITLOAD of evidence to the contrary. But it probably would make good toilet paper to wipe your ass with though.

[Octafish]

141. No. That's just what J Edgar Hoover and Allen Dulles want you to believe.

Now why would those gangsters want people to believe that fiction?

It's clear that they wanted to cover up the truth.

I don't know what that is, but the evidence I've seen points to a whole lot more to the story than what they let on.

"The public must be satisfied that Oswald was the assassin; that he had no confederates who are still at large; and that evidence was such that he would have been convicted at trial."

— Assistant Attorney General Nicholas Katzenbach to Presidential Assistant Bill Moyers, November 25, 1963.

Here's a good place to start learning about the rest of the story:

http://www.history-matters.com/jfkmurder.htm

[Gabi Hayes]

146. What conspiracy? As Posner has averred, there's NO WAY

that Oswald and David Ferrie were ever in the same place at the same time, much less ever knew each other.



oopsy! just another one of those easily explained coincidences.

don't you love how the coincidence theorists get to control the language of this MURDER case?

then, there's always this book, which, while not advocating a position WRT who killed JFK, sets the record straight about swine like Richard Helms, who lied and lied and lied, then lied some more about Oswald's ties to the intelligence community, not to mention Clay Shaw's. Why would they do that? Why should anyone believe anything those in power at the time, or now, for that matter, have to say?



http://www.amazon.com/Oswald-CIA-John-Newman/dp/0786701315



oh....and hey, coincidence nuts! here's something that will bolster your fawning credulity of Posner: he blames CLINTON for 911. Look who pushes his cart

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2003/9/4/03534.shtml

Posner: Clinton’s Negligence Led to 9/11
Dave Eberhart and NewsMax.com Staff
Thursday, Sept. 4, 2003


Best-selling author Gerald Posner says much of the blame for 9/11 and the U.S. government’s negligence falls squarely on the shoulders

[brettdale]

125. The reason I think there was more than one gunman

Or, something more to it than the Warren Commission has let on.

Is watching all the debate over the years on the MSM, thru CNN, and the print media.

Whenever you get discussion on the topic, the experts who think there is something more to the assassination than the government has let on, seem to discuss every issue with an open mind and they take all accounts. Every bit of evidence is discuss, every witness account is discuss in a proper manner fitting a debate.

The people who believe that Oswald was the lone gunman and that was it, seem to be so closed minded and very angry that people believe in anything else.

On CNN about five years ago, they had this gentleman on and he was furious, he was screaming

"It was Olswald, that's it, no argument, case closed"

Its like he was trying to hide something.

My theory is, you have to look at it, like a normal murder case, If every Witness questioned said, they heard the shots coming from the Grassy Knoll, but they were told by the Police to sign in their statement that it came from the building across the road instead, you would think something is up, right there and then.

[Warren DeMontague]

132. I like how Posner asks that people "bring forth additional evidence", like other film footage.

Dude, why don't you start with all the cameras the FBI confiscated, that have never been seen since?

I don't know who he's trying to "settle" this for, but Posner's a shitheel.

[Gabi Hayes]

138. that doesn't make much sense, does it, considering the name of his book?

now, THERE's a face that inspires confidence.

what's his next book going to be, Riding the Crazy Train: My Life With Aliester Crowley?

[Warren DeMontague]

148. Yeah, he could really use a big fuckin' black Top Hat to complete the evil ringmaster look.

Muahahahahahaha!

[La_Fourmi_Rouge]

133. Je fart dans votre direction générale, merci.

[KG]

151. does mean there are those that still believe oswald actually hit something?

[JustABozoOnThisBus]

166. I don't think Oswald was anywhere near his rifle that day ...

That young Marine looked into the camera and said "I didn't shoot anybody. I'm just a patsy." I believe him.

[Liberal In Texas]

152. Posner is an idiot. Believe him no moe than you would the WMD meme.

I've heard this guy over and over. I have not read his books and have no intention to.

He touts the company line like a good little German.

Every interview on radio I've heard, Posner has nothing but the Warren Commission BS. Even RW radio hosts put him down.

Disregard.

[Fozzledick]

164. Posner is the public spokesman for the pro-Nazi faction of the CIA

And by pro-Nazi I don't mean just generic fascists but specifically the group that saved the top surviving Nazi commanders in 1945, transported them to South America and found them employment as torture advisers to our client dictatorships. He claims that they chose him as an "independent journalist" to tell their story, but they never talk to anyone who isn't working for them as their agent.

[JackRiddler]

167. Very interesting, please source...

I'm genuinely curious and certainly this doesn't surprise me - hey the pro-Nazi faction of the CIA (under Dulles) are probably the ones who ended up doing in Kennedy, as well as having their guy investigate it -- Dulles again, on the Warren Commission (for crap's sake, knowing that, can you believe ANYONE still believes in random lone-gunman theory?). Where are Posner's reports on the pro-Nazi CIA?

[Guy Whitey Corngood]

165. This guy is one hell of an investigative reporter.

I especially love how he discovered that September 11th was actualy Bill Clinton's fault.

:eyes:

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2003/9/4/03534.shtml

[WillyT]

169. Sigh...

:cry: