Please. Everybody knows it was Edward Blake.
"I shot JFK" : your opinion please
- Thread starter Captain Gandalf
- Start date
Your dad is right on the money: this is crap.
Oswald, the pathetic, weak-chinned, 24-year old stoop-shouldered little shit, murdered John F. Kennedy.
Joe, doubtless
This long after the event there's no way to be 100% sure what happened, especially with the gross mishandling of the investigations into the assassination. The whole thing seems very fishy to me, and I am not totally convinced Oswald acted alone, though he might have been the only gunman.
As to the OP's reference - anything's possible, but I doubt it.
As to the OP's reference - anything's possible, but I doubt it.
There is but one question then. If Oswald acted alone, then why did Jack Ruby shoot him after he was arrested. There was no logical reason for Ruby to do this, Oswaled would have been executed for the crime, unless Ruby did so to prevent Oswald from spilling the beans about a larger conspiracy.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W6naJ08Tskk
Yep anything's possible...
Jack Ruby was a small time man that had big time dreams,he actually thought he was a hero for killing Oswald. He was ,in the words of people who knew him,a schmuck and he robbed the American people of closure, helping to create the Conspiracy Industry as we know it today...
Ok, but what about the second bullet, that hit him in the right eye and exited the right side of his skull? That couldn't have come from Oswald; he was looking at Kennedy's back!
You can even see that in the films bystanders shot : you can clearly see him getting hit and his head recoiling backwards. A shot through the back of his skull would have made him go forward.
That doesn't make sense.
Just look at the moment he gets shot : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i5cCzDbtVnM
You can even see that in the films bystanders shot : you can clearly see him getting hit and his head recoiling backwards. A shot through the back of his skull would have made him go forward.
That doesn't make sense.
Just look at the moment he gets shot : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i5cCzDbtVnM
Alternate timeline.
I have a confession to make.
I killed JFK. After stealing the TARDIS and traveling forward in time, kidnapping Spock, taking him to the 18th century and outfitting him with a flintlock musket, then abducting master feudal Japanese swordsman, giving them 21st century SWAT team training, having them then train Spock in marksmanship, dumping Spock behind the grassy knoll and having him shoot JFK, and finally replacing Jack Ruby with a robot programmed to kill Oswald in order to keep it all covered up.
I'm glad I got that off my chest. Thanks for listening.
Kennedy was never shot in the right eye.
His face was intact after the shooting.
He was shot in the back of the neck (the so called magic bullet) and the back of the skull.
and peoples bodies react all sorts of ways when shot.
Some jerk away from the point of impact, some toward, some sideways.
It seems you're right. I found this site : http://www.celebritymorgue.com/jfk/jfk-autopsy.html where they show five pictures of the autopsy; you can clearly see the wounds. Before you click on this link, be warned, the pictures are unsettling, even gruesome.
In my opinion, only two things keeps the conspiracy theories going after all these years. First, the Warren Commission's report was far from perfectly investigated. So some question the entire thing. Second, and perhaps more important, it's just hard for many to accept that a lone turd loser like Oswald could affect the world like he did. So, people concoct grander reasons they feel are more befitting a tragedy of such scale.
I don't doubt that this documentary is convincing, but that doesn't mean much, filmmakers are very skilled at manipulating their audience, and they have total control over the information they decide to show.
I'm sorry to say that your father's argument makes a lot of sense - if it were so clear that whatever is said in that documentary is true, then why doesn't that story get any attention in the mainstream media?
"EVIDENCE SHOWS OSWALD NOT JFK KILLER
CIA/MOB CONSPIRACY REVEALED"
That would be the headline of the decade if the story held up to scrutiny.
I'm sure if you check out the available information yourself (and there are mountains of it regarding this topic), you'll come to a different conclusion.
The bullet hit the back of the head and traveled at a shallow angle through the right side of the skull, blowing a lot of stuff out as it exited. The small bullet entering the skull doesn't make the head move much, but the shockwave it creates through the skull, pushing matter out the exit wound at high velocity, can force the head in the opposite direction. The exiting matter acting like a jet, in other words, creating an opposite reaction. This effect has been reproduced.
The "magic bullet" made famous in the Oliver Stone movie (and "Seinfeld") is a myth, too. The way Connally was twisted around in his seat makes pretty much a straight line from Kennedy through the governor's torso to his wrist. With much of its energy spent, the bullet was deflected after breaking the wrist bone and ended up in the leg. The diagrams where Kennedy and Connally are sitting upright, facing forward, squarely in their seats like mannequins are just ridiculously inaccurate.
The bullet looked pristine to a casual glance, but it was actually deformed, with a little lead squished out at the bottom. People have been able to reproduce this, shooting the same type ammo through ballistic gelatins. Full metal jacket bullets can hold together remarkably well.
Reclaiming History by Vincent Bugliosi lays all the evidence out like a prosecutor would. In fact, it overdoes it, and the book is hard to slog through. But there is a lot of evidence, and none of the conspiracy theories fit the evidence like Oswald as the lone shooter.
I agree and well put.
--Justin
Beat me to it, you wily bastard.
I'm glad Watchmen had the guts to show the real end to the Zapruder film!
Ok, guys, you finally convinced me. Case closed.
(Damn. My dad wins another argument.
)
(Damn. My dad wins another argument.
)
The problem with this subject is that there are so many conflicting reports and ideas that if you read enough you just don't know what to think anymore. And every piece of evidence seems so convincing, and then you see the opposite evidence and that seems convincing too. It's all so confusing!
Assuming that Oswald was the lone shooter, what about all the theories about why he did it? The mob plots and Cuban conspiracies and all that...what do you all think? Was he just some crazy killer, was he hired by someone who wanted the President dead, or something else?
The easiest answer is that he was just a crazy guy who wanted to kill JFK and so he did. But I wonder if that's the truth.
Assuming that Oswald was the lone shooter, what about all the theories about why he did it? The mob plots and Cuban conspiracies and all that...what do you all think? Was he just some crazy killer, was he hired by someone who wanted the President dead, or something else?
The easiest answer is that he was just a crazy guy who wanted to kill JFK and so he did. But I wonder if that's the truth.
You mean chain of evidence?
Yes.
Sorry. Did not catch that.
Everyone knows I assume that police and investigators have more faith in physical evidence than in eyewitness testimony.
