"back and to the left", will it ever die?
bigdog
crowd since Costner/Garrison repeated that phrase over and over again
in the movie JFK. It has become a mantra as can be seen in several
threads that are active at this time. It was a clever illusion created
by Oliver Stone by repeatedly showing the film sequence immediately
following the head shot, in which JFK is seen leaning to his left
while moving backwards, while Costner repeated the phrase "back and to
the left". The image became seared in people's minds and apparently
was enough to convince many people the shot had come from the front
right, driving him "back and to the left". There is just one problem
with this cinematic trick pulled by Stone. It ignores the fact that
JFK was already leaning hard to the left BEFORE he was shot in the
head.
Last night I watched the History International special about the 24
hours following the assassination. I believe it was based on the
recently released Manchester papers. It quotes two witnesses in the
follow up car that confirm that JFK was leaning to his left toward
Jackie. Those were the observations of SS agent Emory Roberts and JFK
friend and adviser Dave Powers. The Z-film corroborates their
accounts. JFK was indeed leaning to his left when the fatal bullet
hit. For one frame, his head went forward, and then he rocked STRAIGHT
back in his seat. His head and torso maintained the leftward lean that
was present before the head shot while he made this backward move. To
see this all one has to do is observe the tilt of JFK's torso at Z312
and look at his position when he hits the car seat at Z320. He is
leaning left at Z312. At Z320 his torso is still on the far right hand
side of his seat. His body has the same leftward lean it had before
the head shot. Following the head shot, there was no movement or
additional tilt to his left. This pretty much shoots down the argument
that the rearward movement was from the force of a shot from his front
right. He didn't move away from this alleged gun but laterally to its
supposed path. For JFK to have been driven in the direction of the
bullet, the shot would have to have come from the overpass, a location
that even diehard CTs gave up on a long time ago.
There are of course other problems with the front right shot theory.
Such a shot should have either blown out the back left side of JFK's
head or lodged in the left hemisphere of his brain. Except in the
world of Tony Marsh, neither of those happened. We have no witnesses
who saw a gunman behind the picket fence despite Lee Bowers who had a
perfect view of the area and numerous witnesses who raced to that
location immediately following the head shot. Apparently we had a
magic gunman firing a magic bullet from the GK. Lastly, a bullet lacks
the throw weight to propel a man's head and torso backward to the
degree we see JFK move. But even with all these problems, will "back
and to the left" ever die. I seriously doubt it. The CTs will continue
to cling to it. You can't expect a drowning man to let go of his life
preserver.
PS. I thought the History International program was an excellent
presentation of what was going on in the aftermath of the
assassination. It did not seem to be arguing either for a conspiracy
but focused on the transfer of power and the function of the
government in those critical 24 hours after JFK died. Unfortunately, I
fell asleep shortly after the part where JFK had been officially
pronounced dead, so I will have to catch it again when it is replayed,
which I'm sure will happen quite frequently.
John Blubaugh
No, it will never die because it happened. Back and to the left. It is
obvious. All of the American public has seen that and understand what
it means except for about 30 fantatics on this site. Hey, the earth is
round too, is that a revelation for you?
JB
Sandy McCroskey
"Back and to the left" is so far from "obvious" that some of your CT
colleagues have been compelled to concoct the utterly ludicrous theory
of Z film alteration to protect their long-held conviction that there
was a shot from the front.
/sm
HistorianDetective
JB
> No, it will never die because it happened. Back and to the left. It is
> obvious. All of the American public has seen that and understand what
> it means except for about 30 fantatics on this site. Hey, the earth is
> round too, is that a revelation for you?
>
> JB
The earth is also tilted, as is your obvous "Back and to the left".
You missed one direction.
Further analysis utilizing intellectual honesty and informed
common sense concludes the sequence being.....
FORWARD, BACK, and TO THE LEFT.
JM
Thalia
Do you EVER think to youself: Gee, I have to come up with some
convoluted, far-fetched explanations to believe LHO acted alone. I
have to accept the preposperous SBT AND the ridiculous "jet effect." I
have to believe that somehow JFK's jacket AND shirt was so bunched up
it accounts for a four inch discrepency between the bullet holes in
his clothes compared to his body. I would have to argue that a shot
from a steep angle behind would not blast through Kennedy's head and
out through his face [it would would somehow blast upwards instead],
but that a shot from the grassy knoll would have to keep going through
to the left of Kennedy's head and destroy the left hemisphere of his
brain.
Squinty Magoo
How can JFK's torso both maintain a "leftward lean" before and after
the head shot and also be on the far right of the seat?
Of course the world is not round to them because they apply Occam's
Razor to the question of why we cannot see beyond the horizon.
jas
Well said.
Don't forget the Moorman photo. I guess CTs lost that one.
Try to watch both parts of "3 shots that changed America" too.
Excellent production.
jas
>
> No, it will never die because it happened. Back and to the left. It is
> obvious. All of the American public has seen that and understand what
> it means except for about 30 fantatics on this site. Hey, the earth is
> round too, is that a revelation for you?
>
(Bigdog's excellent post snipped for space.)
And who are these 30 "fantatics" on this site?
Is that a new word for "looking hard at the totality of the evidence
in order to come to a reasonable conclusion?"
Why, thank you.
And, the Earth isn't round. It's more or less egg-shaped.
Is this a revelation for you?
John Blubaugh
>
> - Show quoted text -
Show the Z film to 100 people off the street and ask them where that
last shot came from. You lost this battle as soon as the Z-film was
released to the public.
JB
HistorianDetective
Thalia...
> Do you EVER think to youself: Gee, I have to come up with some
> convoluted, far-fetched explanations to believe LHO acted alone.
Do you EVER think to youself: Gee, one of these years I have to
come up with some credible evidence that he didn't act alone and
that supports your conclusion that the conspirators were CIA WWll
vets?
Outside of your pure conjecture in that regard?
JM
I
> have to accept the preposperous SBT AND the ridiculous "jet effect." I
> have to believe that somehow JFK's jacket AND shirt was so bunched up
> it accounts for a four inch discrepency between the bullet holes in
> his clothes compared to his body. I would have to argue that a shot
> from a steep angle behind would not blast through Kennedy's head and
> out through his face [it would would somehow blast upwards instead],
> but that a shot from the grassy knoll would have to keep going through
> to the left of Kennedy's head and destroy the left hemisphere of his
> brain.- Hide quoted text -
yeuhd
> convoluted, far-fetched explanations to believe LHO acted alone. I
> have to accept the preposperous SBT AND the ridiculous "jet effect."
Jet effect? That was Luiz Alvarez's theory. But when is the last time
you heard anyone here attribute the head movement to a jet effect?
Vincent Bugliosi argues (correctly, I believe) that a rifle bullet
does not have the velocity to move a head more than a couple of
inches. More here form a ballistics expert:
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/macpher.htm
> have to believe that somehow JFK's jacket AND shirt was so bunched up
> it accounts for a four inch discrepency between the bullet holes in
> his clothes compared to his body.
The photos of JFK's jacket and collar taken in the minutes and seconds
before the shots don't lie. The fold has to be only two inches
"high" (two inches on each side of the fold) to create a four-inch
displacement. Check out the photos:
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/bunched.htm
> I would have to argue that a shot
> from a steep angle behind would not blast through Kennedy's head and
> out through his face [it would would somehow blast upwards instead],
The Zapruder film shows JFK's head was leaning notably forward at
Z-312. Look for yourself:
http://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z312.jpg
> but that a shot from the grassy knoll would have to keep going through
> to the left of Kennedy's head and destroy the left hemisphere of his
> brain.
Yes, it would have to.
bigdog
>
> - Show quoted text -
Were you trying to see how many mistakes you could make in a single
paragraph. Let's count them up.
1. There is nothing preposterous about the SBT. It is the only way it
could have happened.
2. There is nothing ridiculous about jet effect. It has been
demonstrated numerous times experimentally. However, you do not have
to accept it to believe Oswald acted alone. Jet effect did not cause
JFK's backward movement any more than a frontal shot did because
neither could have exerted enough force on JFK to move him to that
degree.
3. There was not a 4 inch discepancy between the holes in JFK's
clothing and the entrance wound on his back.
4. If JFK had been facing away from Oswald, the bullet would have come
out his face. But JFK's head was turned to his left which put his
right temple in line with the entrance wound on the back right side of
his head. But don't tell Tony Marsh about this. He thinks the there
was a bullet hole above JFK's right eye.
5. Yes, a bullet fired from the GK striking JFK in the left temple
would have either lodged in the left side of his brain or blasted out
the back left side of his skull.
John Blubaugh
>
> - Show quoted text -
I don't see that but if you want an explanation, his head bounced back
after that violent jerk back and to the left.
JB
markmark
The SBT and the jet effect are hardly ridiculous. And JFK's shirt and
jacket ARE bunched up, just moments before the shooting; several
pictures very plainly show this. And once the bullet entered his
skull, the fragments left over from the explosion could have just
about exited anywhere.
Mark
davidemerling
> Do you EVER think to youself: Gee, I have to come up with some
> convoluted, far-fetched explanations to believe LHO acted alone.
Can you tell us, conclusively, where these other gunmen were located?
Who where they? Were any bullets recovered from their weapons? Have
you found any of their weapons? Do you have witnesses who SAW them
shooting from these locations? What is your explanation as to why the
autopsy only indicated shots from behind?
At least I have a suspect who has a name. There is evidence
implicating him. I think most fair-minded people would say the
evidence is compelling.
You have whispers, ghosts, shadows, lollipops and puppy dog tails.
> You have to accept the preposperous SBT AND the ridiculous "jet effect."
You think the wounds sustained by Connally came from a separate shot?
Where did that shot originate? From behind? How could it have possibly
missed Kennedy?
> I would have to argue that a shot
> from a steep angle behind would not blast through Kennedy's head and
> out through his face [it would would somehow blast upwards instead],
> but that a shot from the grassy knoll would have to keep going through
> to the left of Kennedy's head and destroy the left hemisphere of his
> brain.
The bullet's deflection from it's entry to it's exit is not very great
and not all that unexpected. It was deflected upwards but it most
certainly continue FORWARD. Would you have been surprised if Kennedy
had been shot from behind (as indicated) and the entire frontal area
of of his head was completely intact? I would! Equally, I would have
been surprised (along with every other rationale person) if Kennedy
had been shot from the right and the entire left side of his head was
completely intact. That would be much more than a "deflection" -
wouldn't you agree?
If Kennedy was shot in the head from the grassy knoll, then where was
the exit wound?
You can repeat your doubts as much as you want with your hyperbolic
language. You can scream it from the hilltops. It doesn't change the
simple FACT that all the strong evidence in this case lines up against
Oswald. To conclude the complete opposite, based on this evidence, is
simply throwing your common sense out the window.
David Emerling
Memphis, TN
John Blubaugh
wrote:
>
> - Show quoted text -
The slow forward movement is due to the braking of the limo and
everyone else in the car is moving forward too. Where they all shot in
the back of the head at the same time?
JB
markmark
What difference does it make what they think? The vast majority of
those same 100 people probably think he was the youngest president
too.
Mark
Bud
Thats as good an explanation for why so many people have come to the
wrong conclusion about this event as i`ve seen.
> JB
John Blubaugh
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Or perhaps you are deluding yourself by not accepting the fact that it
shows that a shot came from the right front. Everyone else already
has. My father was a World War II veteran who saw heavy combat with
82nd Airborne in Africa, Sicily, Italy, D-Day and the Belgium Bulge.
He saw men hit dozens of times. I showed him the film and he said
immediately that Kennedy had been hit by a sniper who was to the front
and right of him. My father was part of a sniper team and said he had
seen that reaction many times. He was convinced from that moment on
that there was a sniper team at various locations. I believe him. I
have no reason at all to believe anything you say.
JB
JB
Thalia
So explain to me what force propelled Kennedy backwards as we see in
the Z-film.
Why would a shot have to destroy the left hemisphere of his brain,
when a shot from the TSBD would not keep going and destroy Kennedy's
face? Ever heard of a dum dum bullet? Plus, the bullet entered
Kennedy's right temple and skidded backwards taking out skull from the
right of his head and blasting a hole in the right rear of his head.
Skull and brain matter blasted backwards - Jackie leaped onto the
trunk to retrieve a piece of brain she saw fly off.
Just saying "it would have to" is bogus.
Bud
Yah, the bullet fragments that were found where the political figures
were shot were conclusively tied to the rifle owned by the political
fanatic.
>Gee, I have to come up with some
> convoluted, far-fetched explanations to believe LHO acted alone. I
> have to accept the preposperous SBT
Oh, no! A CTer feels the SBT is preposterous. How will it survive? Oh,
right, it`s the truth.
>AND the ridiculous "jet effect." I
> have to believe that somehow JFK's jacket AND shirt was so bunched up
> it accounts for a four inch discrepency between the bullet holes in
> his clothes compared to his body.
All I need to believe is that when the bullet passed through, the
clothing was positioned where the hole is the body is shown to be.
> I would have to argue that a shot
> from a steep angle behind would not blast through Kennedy's head and
> out through his face
I`ve seen nothing presented establishing that a shot from the 6th
floor must exit Kennedy`s face, have you?
>[it would would somehow blast upwards instead],
> but that a shot from the grassy knoll would have to keep going through
> to the left of Kennedy's head and destroy the left hemisphere of his
> brain.
Right, it wasn`t the person seen shooting that inflicted the damage with
the rifle found, it was the person CT`s imagine firing from where they
imagine he fired from using the rifle they imagine.
Thalia
John only in the strange world of the Lone Nuts, would someone believe
a person body would instantly move towards the direction of the bullet
once struck. And they we are the ones "without common sense!"
Thalia
>
> - Show quoted text -
You know his SHIRT was bunched do you? How do you know that? Great
tailor the President had. Imagine sitting with a business shirt on and
it bunches up at your shoulders, folding over itself. It just doesn't
happen. Look at where the bullet holes are in both his shirt and
jacket, way too low to come out at his adam apple. You are just being
dishonest with yourself. His jacket had a slight deformity in it,
possible accounting for a discprecency of a few mm's. Thats all. Tell
your "Once the bullet entered his skull the fragments left over could
have just about exited anywhere" story to your Lone Nut mates - they
think it could have only exited the left side of his head.
yeuhd
> So explain to me what force propelled Kennedy backwards as we see in
> the Z-film.
Not the force of a bullet, from whatever direction. A bullet just does
not have that amount of energy. Most likely a neuromuscular reaction
from being shot in the brain.
> Why would a shot have to destroy the left hemisphere of his brain,
> when a shot from the TSBD would not keep going and destroy Kennedy's
> face?
Because that was neither the position of JFK's head nor the trajectory
of the bullet. From Oswald's position, the front of JFK's head was not
in line with the back of his head. JFK was leaning forward and to his
left. Look at the Zapruder film and/or the photos of the re-creation
taken from the 6th floor window.
> Plus, the bullet entered
> Kennedy's right temple and skidded backwards taking out skull from the
> right of his head and blasting a hole in the right rear of his head.
Apparently you cannot tell the difference between a bullet entry hole
and a bullet exit hole? The wound at the back of the head was small
and circular, and bevelled into the skull. The wound on the right side
of the head was massive and irregular, and outward beveling was found
on one of the edges.
> Skull and brain matter blasted backwards - Jackie leaped onto the
> trunk to retrieve a piece of brain she saw fly off.
> Just saying "it would have to" is bogus.
Look at frame Z-313, particularly a color-enhanced version:
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/nixetal.htm
All the jets of blood and brain matter are shooting *forward*. There
are no jets shooting backward. Some of the blood and brain matter made
its way backwards for two reasons: (1) obviously, the motorcade was
moving forward, and particles suspended in the air were going to fall
onto objects and persons moving into that space; and (2) the wind was
blowing in that direction. See the coattails of Jean Hill and Mary
Moorman blowing in the Nix film:
http://jfk.fotopic.net/p37566454.html
And Jackie Kennedy had no memory of even going onto the trunk, much
less why, so your claim that she went onto the trunk "to retrieve a
piece of brain she saw fly off" is an opinion, not a fact.
Thalia
>
> > I would have to argue that a shot
> > from a steep angle behind would not blast through Kennedy's head and
> > out through his face
>
> I`ve seen nothing presented establishing that a shot from the 6th
> floor must exit Kennedy`s face, have you?
>
to Nutters, has to pass through Kennedy's right side of his head and
out the other side, but a bullet shot from the TSBD is allowed to
enter the back of Kennedy's head at a downward angle but not exit out
the front of his head? It somehow gets "deflected" out the top of his
head, like all magic bullets shot from the TSBD, it behaves in most
unusual ways, and just does its own thing. I don't have a problem with
Kennedy's face being intact allowing for a headshot from the TSBD, but
why the double standards? But I keep forgetting, if your a Lone
Nutter, black is white, and white is black.
Thalia
>
> All I need to believe is that when the bullet passed through, the
> clothing was positioned where the hole is the body is shown to be.
This is so tiresome. All you need to "believe?" Try on a business
shirt, and honestly, does the shirt ride up across your shoulders
while you are sitting down? If it does, post it on youtube. Maybe you
can finally put the case to rest. Here is photo of Kennedy's shirt, so
you can get an idea of ho much it would have to ride up. Place a black
dot on your shirt so it is more accurate when you do the experiment.
Don't forget LHO was shooting from a steep angle so the bullet really
should have gone through the top of Kennedy's neck to come out at his
adam's apple the other side, as presumably the bullet would continue
on its downward trajectory. If only the autopsy tream had been allowed
to track the bullet's path! Maybe we wouldn't be having these
interesting discussions.
Kennedy's shirt:
http://whatreallyhappened.com/RANCHO/POLITICS/JFK/Shirt.jpg
HSCA re-enactment of Kennedy's head position, desperately trying to
explain the bullet holes,
Warren Commission description of the "angle" from the TSBD: [a LIE]
http://karws.gso.uri.edu/jfk/the_critics/Fonzi/WC_Truth_Specter/Shirt.jpg
The basic truth is that for the SBT to work, and for Kennedy's small,
neat throat wound to be explained, downright lies, distortions and
major fudging of the evidence is required. This is common sense to
ANYONE who seriously wants the truth.
Chuck Schuyler
> No, it will never die because it happened. Back and to the left. It is
> obvious. All of the American public has seen that and understand what
> it means except for about 30 fantatics on this site. Hey, the earth is
> round too, is that a revelation for you?
>
> JB
It is round (slightly pear shaped), but man-made industrial activity
isn't making it warmer, and that, I suspect, is a revelation to you.
yeuhd
> So any bullet shot from the GK or another position in front, according
> to Nutters, has to pass through Kennedy's right side of his head and
> out the other side, but a bullet shot from the TSBD is allowed to
> enter the back of Kennedy's head at a downward angle but not exit out
> the front of his head?
Because:Kennedy's head was leaning forward and to the left at Z-312,
as the Zapruder film shows:
http://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z312.jpg
The front-to-back axis of JFK's head was not in line with the
trajectory from the 6th floor window. Add to that the forward tilt
caused by the decline in Elm Street in relation to the Depository.
> It somehow gets "deflected" out the top of his
> head,
No, it did not. Although the massive head wound on the right side of his
head caused skull fractures that extended upward to the top of the skull,
the *center* of the wound was above and behind the right ear, not at the
top of the head. We know where the center of the wound was because the
edge of one of the skull pieces contained an outward- bevelled bullet
hole.
Herbert Blenner
>
> - Show quoted text -
Your problem, Thalia, is that you have not learned to think like lone
nuts. According to them, the action of the bullet upon the victim is away
from the shooter. So the reaction of the victim is movement toward the
shooter.
Herbert
Anthony Marsh
Welcome to the wacky world of the WC defenders where hypocrisy reigns.
They claim something is impossible if a conspiracy believer proposes it,
then advance exactly the same idea when they need it. They say a bullet
from the grassy knoll can not move the head back and to the left, then
claim that a bullet from behind pushed the head 2.3 inches in less than
half a Zapruder frame.
John Blubaugh
We don't know anything at all. The autopsy was hopelessly botched. How
about that semi-circular defect above his right eye? I suppose that
was caused by a shot from the rear.
JB
jas
Well, Kevin Costner as Jim Garrison in the restaurant scene with his
staff in "JFK," there is no double standard.
(Sigh... always in denial, aren't you.)
The head shot bullet was a more tangential strike, not totally on
center, with Kennedy's head tilted left at Z-313 as seen in Moorman.
As a result the skull bones deflected the force of the bullet
fragments and brain matter/blood out the right/top side as clearly
seen in the Z film.
Had Kennedy been sitting completely upright with the bullet striking
true center, the fragments and matter could easily have blown his face
off.
On the other hand, the alleged GK shot trajectory from where most
CTers maintain the shooter was located was more of a right angle to
Kennedy's head at Z-313, and would have blown out the left side.
Where have you been? This was clearly demonstrated on "Inside the
Target Car." What?--- you have no tellys down under?
So, just facts-- no double standard.
And, really, come on now. Why is it so hard for you and your CT
cronies to understand this, it being perhaps the thousandth time it
has been explained to you?
John Blubaugh
Then how do you explain the violent back and to the left reaction by JFK
if you do not believe in jet effect. I believe you are correct, of course.
I just think you are wrong about it not being a strong reaction to a shot
from the right front. You know all of those thousands of Jews the Germans
lined up before big pits and shot in the back of the head (with 45s I
believe) and every one of them lurched forward into the trench. Why didn't
just one of them have a jet effect and lurch back toward the executioner?
That is because there is no such thing. Back and to the left. Shot from
right and to the front.
JB
John Blubaugh
wrote:
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
She has pointed out credible evidence. The Z-film shows JFK's violent
lurch back and to the left in reaction to a gunshot from the right
front. There was no jet effect, it doesn't exist except in the minds
of a few LN fantatics who can't find any rational explanation for that
movement.
JB
John Blubaugh
>
> - Show quoted text -
1. The SBT is preposterous. The entry wound is too low on Kennedy's
back to exit at the proper angle through the throat. No SBT =
Conspiracy
2. The jet effect is an outright fraud. Thousands of Jews slain by the
Germans by being shot in the back of the head and they ALL lurched
forward into the pit. Not one lurched back at the shooter.
3. Of course there was. You can see the how low the actual entrance
would was on his back. This is just another absurd attempt by LNs to
justify the WR conclusions.
4. There is a wound above his eye with a semi-circular defect that
says "entrance wound". Why do you keep denying this? Oh, yeah, if he
was shot there it could hardly have come from behind could it.
5. Yes, it was the same kind of bullet that was supposedly fired from
the sniper's nest. But it could have been a different type of bullet
and none of that would have happened would it?
LNs will go to great lengths to defend the WR. I am not allowed to say
what lengths but you know what I mean.
JB
John Blubaugh
> On Dec 30, 2:31 pm, Thalia <thaliac...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Do you EVER think to youself: Gee, I have to come up with some
> > convoluted, far-fetched explanations to believe LHO acted alone.
>
> Can you tell us, conclusively, where these other gunmen were located?
> Who where they? Were any bullets recovered from their weapons? Have
> you found any of their weapons? Do you have witnesses who SAW them
> shooting from these locations? What is your explanation as to why the
> autopsy only indicated shots from behind?
>
The autopsy was a fraud and this was a professional assassin. He
didn't leave any weapons. Many people reacted to shots coming from the
grassy knoll area.
> At least I have a suspect who has a name. There is evidence
> implicating him. I think most fair-minded people would say the
> evidence is compelling.
>
So do we. He flashed a fake SS credential when stopped by the police.
But there were not any SS people on the knoll. That is your shooter
and Marsh has been naming him for years.
> You have whispers, ghosts, shadows, lollipops and puppy dog tails.
>
No, we have a real live person who was on the knoll and claimed to be
SS. He was not.
> > You have to accept the preposperous SBT AND the ridiculous "jet effect."
>
> You think the wounds sustained by Connally came from a separate shot?
> Where did that shot originate? From behind? How could it have possibly
> missed Kennedy?
>
Not my theory but Connally was a small distance to Kennedy's left. The
shot could have missed him.
> > I would have to argue that a shot
> > from a steep angle behind would not blast through Kennedy's head and
> > out through his face [it would would somehow blast upwards instead],
> > but that a shot from the grassy knoll would have to keep going through
> > to the left of Kennedy's head and destroy the left hemisphere of his
> > brain.
>
> The bullet's deflection from it's entry to it's exit is not very great
> and not all that unexpected. It was deflected upwards but it most
> certainly continue FORWARD. Would you have been surprised if Kennedy
> had been shot from behind (as indicated) and the entire frontal area
> of of his head was completely intact? I would! Equally, I would have
> been surprised (along with every other rationale person) if Kennedy
> had been shot from the right and the entire left side of his head was
> completely intact. That would be much more than a "deflection" -
> wouldn't you agree?
>
> If Kennedy was shot in the head from the grassy knoll, then where was
> the exit wound?
>
With the correct ammunition there doesn't have to be an exit would.
Where is your exit would from the shot you say came from behind? There
isn't one.
> You can repeat your doubts as much as you want with your hyperbolic
> language. You can scream it from the hilltops. It doesn't change the
> simple FACT that all the strong evidence in this case lines up against
> Oswald. To conclude the complete opposite, based on this evidence, is
> simply throwing your common sense out the window.
>
> David Emerling
> Memphis, TN
That is only because the people we are talking to are blind, deaf and
DUMB.
JB
John Blubaugh
>
> - Show quoted text -
So you would rather take the word of a few fanatics who manufacture
all kinds of things like a phony "jet effect" to justify the findings
of the WC?
JB
John Blubaugh
>
> - Show quoted text -
No, just one from the grassy knoll and the evidence is the back and to
the left violent movement of JFK and a wound with a semi-circular
defect above his right eye. You can say "jet effect" all you want and
I will reply bullshit every time so lets just not go there.
JB
yeuhd
> Welcome to the wacky world of the WC defenders where hypocrisy reigns.
> They claim something is impossible if a conspiracy believer proposes it,
> then advance exactly the same idea when they need it. They say a bullet
> from the grassy knoll can not move the head back and to the left, then
> claim that a bullet from behind pushed the head 2.3 inches in less than
> half a Zapruder frame.
The distance and velocity of the head movement backward are much
greater than the distance and velocity of the head movement forward.
So, no, they are not comparable.
Bud
Fortunately real inquiry goes beyond "My Daddy said so".
> JB
>
> JB
Bud
Why do you pretend there isn`t an actual science devoted to this? You
should apprise yourself of what wound ballistic experts say on the matter.
markmark
True, we can't see the shirt. But since we know the coat was bunched,
and the holes in the coat and shirt are very close to the same
distance from their respective collars, use common sense.
Great
> tailor the President had. Imagine sitting with a business shirt on and
> it bunches up at your shoulders, folding over itself. It just doesn't
> happen. Look at where the bullet holes are in both his shirt and
> jacket, way too low to come out at his adam apple. You are just being
> dishonest with yourself. His jacket had a slight deformity in it,
> possible accounting for a discprecency of a few mm's. Thats all. Tell
> your "Once the bullet entered his skull the fragments left over could
> have just about exited anywhere" story to your Lone Nut mates - they
> think it could have only exited the left side of his head.
No they don't. They say that IF he was shot from the right front. Any
reasonable person can see that a bullet entering the right rear of
JFK's head could easily exit on the right side, since his head was
turned slightly to his left, and he was leaning toward his left. Maybe
that's why you can't see it.
Mark
bigdog
>
> - Show quoted text -
Wrong again, Herb. The reaction of the victim has almost nothing to do
with the direction of the shot. Most LNs believe the rearward movement
is caused by the neuro-muscular reaction which in this case caused JFK
to lurch backward. This sort of reaction is totally unpredictable.
Another victim my have a reaction which moved him away from the
shooter. Another might move laterally to the direction of the shot.
The momentum transfer as well as the jet effect, both physical forces,
were present but negligible. Neither caused the rearward movement
because neither could produce sufficient force to have caused the
backward movement. There is a disconnect between the direction of
gunfire and the direction the victim falls.
bigdog
> On 12/31/2009 10:24 AM, Thalia wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > .
>
> >>> I would have to argue that a shot
> >>> from a steep angle behind would not blast through Kennedy's head and
> >>> out through his face
>
> >> I`ve seen nothing presented establishing that a shot from the 6th
> >> floor must exit Kennedy`s face, have you?
>
> > So any bullet shot from the GK or another position in front, according
> > to Nutters, has to pass through Kennedy's right side of his head and
> > out the other side, but a bullet shot from the TSBD is allowed to
> > enter the back of Kennedy's head at a downward angle but not exit out
> > the front of his head? It somehow gets "deflected" out the top of his
> > head, like all magic bullets shot from the TSBD, it behaves in most
> > unusual ways, and just does its own thing. I don't have a problem with
> > Kennedy's face being intact allowing for a headshot from the TSBD, but
> > why the double standards? But I keep forgetting, if your a Lone
> > Nutter, black is white, and white is black.
>
> Welcome to the wacky world of the WC defenders where hypocrisy reigns.
> They claim something is impossible if a conspiracy believer proposes it,
The reason for that is that conspiracy believers propose impossible
things.
> then advance exactly the same idea when they need it. They say a bullet
> from the grassy knoll can not move the head back and to the left, then
> claim that a bullet from behind pushed the head 2.3 inches in less than
> half a Zapruder frame.
Nice strawman. I can't recall seeing anyone claim a bullet cannot push
a body a few inches. The LN position is it cannot push a body as far
back as JFK went. Another force had to be exerted to have caused that.
I'd like to see you point to one experiment which shows a transiting
bullet moving an object the weight of JFK's head and torso back the
distance JFK moved. But good luck ever getting a CT to conduct an
experiment which demonstrates any of their theories. It is much easier
to make unfounded claims.
bigdog
the theory work.
> 2. The jet effect is an outright fraud. Thousands of Jews slain by the
> Germans by being shot in the back of the head and they ALL lurched
> forward into the pit. Not one lurched back at the shooter.
>
Jet effect is not a fraud and was not what caused JFK to lurch
backward. Try to keep up.
> 3. Of course there was. You can see the how low the actual entrance
> would was on his back. This is just another absurd attempt by LNs to
> justify the WR conclusions.
>
Yes I can see how where the entrance wound was and it was above the
throat wound, exactly where it had to be.
> 4. There is a wound above his eye with a semi-circular defect that
> says "entrance wound". Why do you keep denying this? Oh, yeah, if he
> was shot there it could hardly have come from behind could it.
>
There was no wound above his eye. That is as ridiculous as it gets. A
bullet wound above the eye would have been obvious to everyone at
Parkland, everyone at Bethesda, would have been obvious in the autopsy
photos and obvious in the x-rays. It did not show up in any of those.
Are you capable of thinking for yourself or are you just going to
regurgitate whatever BS Marsh feeds you.
> 5. Yes, it was the same kind of bullet that was supposedly fired from
> the sniper's nest. But it could have been a different type of bullet
> and none of that would have happened would it?
>
> LNs will go to great lengths to defend the WR. I am not allowed to say
> what lengths but you know what I mean.
>
To defend the WR, all we have to do is speak the truth.
bigdog
> On Dec 30, 7:30 pm, davidemerling <davidemerl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Dec 30, 2:31 pm, Thalia <thaliac...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > Do you EVER think to youself: Gee, I have to come up with some
> > > convoluted, far-fetched explanations to believe LHO acted alone.
>
> > Can you tell us, conclusively, where these other gunmen were located?
> > Who where they? Were any bullets recovered from their weapons? Have
> > you found any of their weapons? Do you have witnesses who SAW them
> > shooting from these locations? What is your explanation as to why the
> > autopsy only indicated shots from behind?
>
> The autopsy was a fraud and this was a professional assassin. He
> didn't leave any weapons. Many people reacted to shots coming from the
> grassy knoll area.
>
shooting location that is out in the open with no clear path of
escape.
> > At least I have a suspect who has a name. There is evidence
> > implicating him. I think most fair-minded people would say the
> > evidence is compelling.
>
> So do we. He flashed a fake SS credential when stopped by the police.
> But there were not any SS people on the knoll. That is your shooter
> and Marsh has been naming him for years.
>
Still sipping Marsh's Kool-aid?
> > You have whispers, ghosts, shadows, lollipops and puppy dog tails.
>
> No, we have a real live person who was on the knoll and claimed to be
> SS. He was not.
>
> > > You have to accept the preposperous SBT AND the ridiculous "jet effect."
>
> > You think the wounds sustained by Connally came from a separate shot?
> > Where did that shot originate? From behind? How could it have possibly
> > missed Kennedy?
>
> Not my theory but Connally was a small distance to Kennedy's left. The
> shot could have missed him.
>
OMG, now you are even using Marsh's words. "Not my theory but...". How
many times have we heard Marsh use that expression.
>
>
>
>
> > > I would have to argue that a shot
> > > from a steep angle behind would not blast through Kennedy's head and
> > > out through his face [it would would somehow blast upwards instead],
> > > but that a shot from the grassy knoll would have to keep going through
> > > to the left of Kennedy's head and destroy the left hemisphere of his
> > > brain.
>
> > The bullet's deflection from it's entry to it's exit is not very great
> > and not all that unexpected. It was deflected upwards but it most
> > certainly continue FORWARD. Would you have been surprised if Kennedy
> > had been shot from behind (as indicated) and the entire frontal area
> > of of his head was completely intact? I would! Equally, I would have
> > been surprised (along with every other rationale person) if Kennedy
> > had been shot from the right and the entire left side of his head was
> > completely intact. That would be much more than a "deflection" -
> > wouldn't you agree?
>
> > If Kennedy was shot in the head from the grassy knoll, then where was
> > the exit wound?
>
> With the correct ammunition there doesn't have to be an exit would.
> Where is your exit would from the shot you say came from behind? There
> isn't one.
>
There either has to be an exit wound or a bullet in the body. It's a
binary choice.
> > You can repeat your doubts as much as you want with your hyperbolic
> > language. You can scream it from the hilltops. It doesn't change the
> > simple FACT that all the strong evidence in this case lines up against
> > Oswald. To conclude the complete opposite, based on this evidence, is
> > simply throwing your common sense out the window.
>
> > David Emerling
> > Memphis, TN
>
> That is only because the people we are talking to are blind, deaf and
> DUMB.
>
At least we are able to do our own thinking.
Anthony Marsh
>> have to accept the preposperous SBT AND the ridiculous "jet effect." I
>> have to believe that somehow JFK's jacket AND shirt was so bunched up
>> it accounts for a four inch discrepency between the bullet holes in
>> from a steep angle behind would not blast through Kennedy's head and
>> out through his face [it would would somehow blast upwards instead],
>> but that a shot from the grassy knoll would have to keep going through
>> to the left of Kennedy's head and destroy the left hemisphere of his
>> brain.
>
> jacket ARE bunched up, just moments before the shooting; several
> pictures very plainly show this. And once the bullet entered his
> skull, the fragments left over from the explosion could have just
> about exited anywhere.
>
Can you upload these fictional pictures which you say show JFK's SHIRT
bunched up? You can find all the photos you want of JFK's JACKET bunched
up and NOT bunched up. But what was its condition at the exact moment the
bullet hit? Name your frame, the prove it by showing me that picture of
that frame.
> Mark
>
John Blubaugh
>
> - Show quoted text -
You always ignore back and to the left don't you. You have no explanation
for it except "jet effect" that doesn't exist. None of us are going to
believe the propaganda. They used a different type of bullet that is why
the wound is different. How about that wound above the right eye with the
semi-circular defect in the skull? How about addressing the evidence
instead of making things up? I guess that wouldn't be any fun would it and
you would be able to defend your holy WR.
JB
John Blubaugh
I think he had plenty of experience with the subject unlike you who
has never seen anything but the phony WR.
JB
John Blubaugh
>
> > John only in the strange world of the Lone Nuts, would someone believe
> > a person body would instantly move towards the direction of the bullet
> > once struck. And they we are the ones "without common sense!"
>
> Why do you pretend there isn`t an actual science devoted to this? You
>
> - Show quoted text -
Why do you insist on putting your brain in neutral and not seeing what
really happened. Violent back and to the left motion. The logical
explanation is a shot from the right front but you will make up every
hairbrained theory in the world to keep from having to consider that
notion.
JB
bigdog
>
> - Show quoted text -
Tony Marsh has made a convert. If he asks you to drink the Kool-aid,
you might want to take a pass.
Thalia
wrote:
> On Dec 30, 2:31 pm, Thalia <thaliac...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Do you EVER think to youself: Gee, I have to come up with some
> > convoluted, far-fetched explanations to believe LHO acted alone.
>
> Who where they? Were any bullets recovered from their weapons? Have
> you found any of their weapons? Do you have witnesses who SAW them
> shooting from these locations? What is your explanation as to why the
> autopsy only indicated shots from behind?
>
> implicating him. I think most fair-minded people would say the
> evidence is compelling.
>
>
>
> You think the wounds sustained by Connally came from a separate shot?
> Where did that shot originate? From behind? How could it have possibly
> missed Kennedy?
>
> > from a steep angle behind would not blast through Kennedy's head and
> > but that a shot from the grassy knoll would have to keep going through
> > brain.
>
> The bullet's deflection from it's entry to it's exit is not very great
> and not all that unexpected. It was deflected upwards but it most
> certainly continue FORWARD. Would you have been surprised if Kennedy
> had been shot from behind (as indicated) and the entire frontal area
> of of his head was completely intact? I would! Equally, I would have
> been surprised (along with every other rationale person) if Kennedy
> had been shot from the right and the entire left side of his head was
> completely intact. That would be much more than a "deflection" -
> wouldn't you agree?
>
> If Kennedy was shot in the head from the grassy knoll, then where was
> the exit wound?
>
> language. You can scream it from the hilltops. It doesn't change the
> simple FACT that all the strong evidence in this case lines up against
> Oswald. To conclude the complete opposite, based on this evidence, is
> simply throwing your common sense out the window.
>
> David Emerling
> Memphis, TN
So, basically, you have the desire to have the crime "solved" with a
named suspect and "evidence" pertaining to his guilt - "I've got a
named suspect and you haven't, na-na-na-na-na!" The other asassin has
to be a bumbling idiot, leaving his gun behind, and his calling card
to boot, or he wasn't there. We know someone was there, there were
cigarette butts, and muddy footprints on car bumpers, plus a man ID'd
himself as an SS agent to a Dallas Policeman, who later said he
regretted letting him go because of his appearance. He was a
professional, a hired hit man, probably military. We might have
captured him (though I doubt it - cars and trains were allowed to
leave the crime scene)
BTW, how do you explain that the trunk of the limo and the Dallas PD
motorcyclists behind the limo were covered in blood spray? This
happened instantly - they didn't drive into it.
Bud
Well you can think what you like. But what about all people who were
swayed by what they saw in the z-film who haven`t seen the numerous
people shot that you father claimed? Aren`t they just making
assumptions?
And despite what your father may have told you about the effects of
bullets, you can find what an actual wounds ballistic expert had to
say on the subject here...
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/olivier_a.htm
Testable, reproducible science versus hearsay. No doubt which one
you`ll choose.
> JB
Herbert Blenner
You are confusing a contingent physiological reaction with the
physically necessary mechanical reaction. If you understood this
distinction and had an elementary understanding of Newton then
disproving the "back and to the left" motion as a mechanical reaction
to a head shot would require a few sentences.
A bullet moves the head as far as permitted by its attachment to the
torso. Upon reaching this limit the head shares its angular momentum
with the torso and both parts rotate with a significantly diminished
angular speed. In particular angular speed of the "backward" rotation
of the head and torso becomes approximately one fortieth of the
angular speed of the head alone. Clearly the Zapruder film does not
show these motions.
http://mysite.verizon.net/a1eah71/movement.htm
> The momentum transfer as well as the jet effect, both physical forces,
> were present but negligible. Neither caused the rearward movement
> because neither could produce sufficient force to have caused the
> backward movement.
Apparently you prefer to repeat the junk promoted as science by Myth
Busters or Penn and Teller. In particular the assertion that a force
causes movement originated from the metaphysics of Aristotle.
According to Newton a force accelerates an object while the absence of
any force permits unchanging motion of that object.
> There is a disconnect between the direction of
> gunfire and the direction the victim falls.
Aristotlean thinking disconnects your mind from reality.
At least two forces act upon a supported victim. Their weight acts
downward through their center of gravity and an equal and opposite
force acts upward at their point of contact with the support.
Generally these forces create a torque and the victim does not fall
straight down. Instead they rotate about the point of contact with the
support.
Herbert
bigdog
>
> - Show quoted text -
We ignore "back and to the left" because it did not happen. A myth
created by a clever film making propagandist. A myth a lot of gullible
people bought hook, line, and sinker. JFK's movement following the
head shot was straight back. Repeat Stone's myth as often as you want,
it remains a myth. Your failure to provide a plausible explaination
for JFK's far right position at Z320 demostrates that fact. You came
up with a lame effort with your rebounding head theory but the rebound
of the head took place after Z320 and would not explain why JFK's
torso is in the far right of the car seat at Z320. That position is
directly behind the position he was in at Z313. You can dance around
that fact all you want but you can't get away from the fact that JFK's
position at Z320 proves beyond a doubt that "back and to the left" is,
and always will be, a lie.
John Blubaugh
>
> - Show quoted text -
Neuro-muscular misinformation technospeak. I do not believe there is
one instance anywhere where you can show this in action. People who
are shot do not react in a violent movement toward the shooter. It
just doesn't happen and it didn't happen here. This is just LN garbage
science to cover up a shot from the right front. It hasn't worked in
40 plus years and it isn't going to work now.
JB
John Blubaugh
>
> - Show quoted text -
Tony didn't make me a convert. I was looking at this years before I
ever heard of him. I just think he handles the argument against the WR
apologists very well. Thalia does well to ini exposing you BS.
JB
markmark
There are several in Groden's book that show it just seconds before
the shooting. I didn't say I could see it in the Z film.
Mark
Anthony Marsh
So, you think that "back and to the left" did not exist until Oliver
Stone made his movie? Maybe you weren't around before his movie to have
heard of it before.
jas
.
>
> > We don't know anything at all. The autopsy was hopelessly botched. How
> > about that semi-circular defect above his right eye? I suppose that
> > was caused by a shot from the rear.
>
> > JB- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> Tony Marsh has made a convert. If he asks you to drink the Kool-aid,
> you might want to take a pass.
I believe you are correct. We have a Marsh clone in our midst.
Funny how he morphed right in front of our eyes just the past few days
parroting Marsh's "entrance wound above the right eye" BS.
He obviously doesn't have a clue as to what a bullet hole above the
right eye might look like; how obvious it would be in an autopsy photo
-- nor does he take into consideration the Clark Panel, the
Rockefeller Commission, and the HSCA's pathologists not seeing it.
As I said before, simply amazing...
bigdog
Three things explain everything you seem to believe about the
assassination. "Because my Daddy said so". "Because Oliver Stone said
so". "Because Tony Marsh said so".
bigdog
Why do you insist on surrendering your brain to Tony Marsh?
John Blubaugh
>
> - Show quoted text -
Well, you know what McAdams will do when I challenge that last statement.
All of this is LN doublespeak and misdirection. You have to constantly
make up evidence to support the WR. You would go to any extrement and make
any claim to do so. It doesn't work. No one believes you but a fanatical
few.
JB
Amanda Barge
> 2. There is nothing ridiculous about jet effect. It has been
> demonstrated numerous times experimentally. However, you do not have
> to accept it to believe Oswald acted alone. Jet effect did not cause
> JFK's backward movement any more than a frontal shot did because
> neither could have exerted enough force on JFK to move him to that
> degree.
>
> 3. There was not a 4 inch discepancy between the holes in JFK's
> clothing and the entrance wound on his back.
>
> 4. If JFK had been facing away from Oswald, the bullet would have come
> out his face. But JFK's head was turned to his left which put his
> right temple in line with the entrance wound on the back right side of
> his head. But don't tell Tony Marsh about this. He thinks the there
> was a bullet hole above JFK's right eye.
Actually he is refering to a notch in the missing bone, not a separate
hole.
>
> 5. Yes, a bullet fired from the GK striking JFK in the left temple
> would have either lodged in the left side of his brain or blasted out
> the back left side of his skull.
Even a dum-dum bullet?
Jean
>
> > The SBT and the jet effect are hardly ridiculous. And JFK's shirt and
> > jacket ARE bunched up, just moments before the shooting; several
> > pictures very plainly show this. And once the bullet entered his
> > skull, the fragments left over from the explosion could have just
> > about exited anywhere.
>
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> tailor the President had. Imagine sitting with a business shirt on and
> it bunches up at your shoulders, folding over itself. It just doesn't
> happen.
That's just not true, Thalia. Please look at these photos
showing JFK in a business shirt that bunched and folded over the back of
his collar:
http://i48.tinypic.com/2h4avyc.jpg
http://i50.tinypic.com/95yauq.jpg
>Look at where the bullet holes are in both his shirt and
> jacket, way too low to come out at his adam apple.
His adam's apple is well below the shoulder line:
> You are just being
> dishonest with yourself. His jacket had a slight deformity in it,
> possible accounting for a discprecency of a few mm's. Thats all.
Check out the Croft and other photos here:
http://karws.gso.uri.edu/JFK/JFK.html
Incidentally, the author of that article believes in a
conspiracy.
One reason for going with the SBT is that the alternative
is... what exactly? Two bullets from front and rear, each of which
penetrated only a short distance and then disappeared? Were the
killers trying to peck him to death?
Happy new year, Thalia and all.
Jean
jas
> On Dec 31, 12:01 pm, John Blubaugh <jbluba...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > > On Dec 30, 7:19 pm, John Blubaugh <jbluba...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Dec 30, 1:58 pm, Sandy McCroskey <gwmccros...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> > > > > > obvious. All of the American public has seen that and understand what
> > > > > > it means except for about 30 fantatics on this site. Hey, the earth is
> > > > > > round too, is that a revelation for you?
>
> > > > > > JB
>
> > > > > "Back and to the left" is so far from "obvious" that some of your CT
> > > > > colleagues have been compelled to concoct the utterly ludicrous theory
> > > > > of Z film alteration to protect their long-held conviction that there
> > > > > was a shot from the front.
>
> > > > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > > > last shot came from. You lost this battle as soon as the Z-film was
> > > > released to the public.
>
> > > Thats as good an explanation for why so many people have come to the
> > > wrong conclusion about this event as i`ve seen.
>
>
> > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > shows that a shot came from the right front. Everyone else already
> > has. My father was a World War II veteran who saw heavy combat with
> > 82nd Airborne in Africa, Sicily, Italy, D-Day and the Belgium Bulge.
> > He saw men hit dozens of times. I showed him the film and he said
> > immediately that Kennedy had been hit by a sniper who was to the front
> > and right of him. My father was part of a sniper team and said he had
> > seen that reaction many times. He was convinced from that moment on
> > that there was a sniper team at various locations. I believe him. I
> > have no reason at all to believe anything you say.
>
>
> > JB- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> a person body would instantly move towards the direction of the bullet
> once struck. And they we are the ones "without common sense!"
You just love calling LNers "lone nuts" don't you?
Sounds cool, has a great ring to it, and implies we're "nuts" or
"wacky" in the head, no?
But, oddly, we're not allowed to call conspiracists "conspiracy nuts"
on this forum.
Another of the great ironies of this case...
Anthony Marsh
> On Dec 31, 6:51 pm, John Blubaugh<jbluba...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> On Dec 30, 7:30 pm, davidemerling<davidemerl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Dec 30, 2:31 pm, Thalia<thaliac...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>> Do you EVER think to youself: Gee, I have to come up with some
>>>> convoluted, far-fetched explanations to believe LHO acted alone.
>>
>>> Can you tell us, conclusively, where these other gunmen were located?
>>> Who where they? Were any bullets recovered from their weapons? Have
>>> you found any of their weapons? Do you have witnesses who SAW them
>>> shooting from these locations? What is your explanation as to why the
>>> autopsy only indicated shots from behind?
>>
>> The autopsy was a fraud and this was a professional assassin. He
>> didn't leave any weapons. Many people reacted to shots coming from the
>> grassy knoll area.
>>
> A professional assassin would not have been dumb enough to pick a
> shooting location that is out in the open with no clear path of
> escape.
>
It wasn't out in the open. No one saw him shooting. YOU can't even see him.
>>> At least I have a suspect who has a name. There is evidence
>>> implicating him. I think most fair-minded people would say the
>>> evidence is compelling.
>>
>> So do we. He flashed a fake SS credential when stopped by the police.
>> But there were not any SS people on the knoll. That is your shooter
>> and Marsh has been naming him for years.
>>
> Still sipping Marsh's Kool-aid?
>
>>> You have whispers, ghosts, shadows, lollipops and puppy dog tails.
>>
>> No, we have a real live person who was on the knoll and claimed to be
>> SS. He was not.
>>
>>>> You have to accept the preposperous SBT AND the ridiculous "jet effect."
>>
>>> You think the wounds sustained by Connally came from a separate shot?
>>> Where did that shot originate? From behind? How could it have possibly
>>> missed Kennedy?
>>
>> Not my theory but Connally was a small distance to Kennedy's left. The
>> shot could have missed him.
>>
> OMG, now you are even using Marsh's words. "Not my theory but...". How
> many times have we heard Marsh use that expression.
How do you know its not just an alias or clone of me?
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>> I would have to argue that a shot
>>>> from a steep angle behind would not blast through Kennedy's head and
>>>> out through his face [it would would somehow blast upwards instead],
>>>> but that a shot from the grassy knoll would have to keep going through
>>>> to the left of Kennedy's head and destroy the left hemisphere of his
>>>> brain.
>>
>>> The bullet's deflection from it's entry to it's exit is not very great
>>> and not all that unexpected. It was deflected upwards but it most
>>> certainly continue FORWARD. Would you have been surprised if Kennedy
>>> had been shot from behind (as indicated) and the entire frontal area
>>> of of his head was completely intact? I would! Equally, I would have
>>> been surprised (along with every other rationale person) if Kennedy
>>> had been shot from the right and the entire left side of his head was
>>> completely intact. That would be much more than a "deflection" -
>>> wouldn't you agree?
>>
>>> If Kennedy was shot in the head from the grassy knoll, then where was
>>> the exit wound?
>>
>> With the correct ammunition there doesn't have to be an exit would.
>> Where is your exit would from the shot you say came from behind? There
>> isn't one.
>>
> There either has to be an exit wound or a bullet in the body. It's a
> binary choice.
Wrong. James Brady didn't have an exit wound.
Anthony Marsh
Then why did they need to lie and move it higher?
>> 2. The jet effect is an outright fraud. Thousands of Jews slain by the
>> Germans by being shot in the back of the head and they ALL lurched
>> forward into the pit. Not one lurched back at the shooter.
>>
> Jet effect is not a fraud and was not what caused JFK to lurch
> backward. Try to keep up.
>
You sound like a heretic.
>> 3. Of course there was. You can see the how low the actual entrance
>> would was on his back. This is just another absurd attempt by LNs to
>> justify the WR conclusions.
>>
> Yes I can see how where the entrance wound was and it was above the
> throat wound, exactly where it had to be.
>
Except that you keep changing where it was.
>> 4. There is a wound above his eye with a semi-circular defect that
>> says "entrance wound". Why do you keep denying this? Oh, yeah, if he
>> was shot there it could hardly have come from behind could it.
>>
> There was no wound above his eye. That is as ridiculous as it gets. A
> bullet wound above the eye would have been obvious to everyone at
> Parkland, everyone at Bethesda, would have been obvious in the autopsy
> photos and obvious in the x-rays. It did not show up in any of those.
> Are you capable of thinking for yourself or are you just going to
> regurgitate whatever BS Marsh feeds you.
>
It does show up in the autopsy photos and the X-rays. The fact that you
are the only person who can't see it tells us something about your
agenda here.
Anthony Marsh
> On Dec 31, 4:42 pm, Anthony Marsh<anthony_ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> On 12/31/2009 10:24 AM, Thalia wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> .
>>
>>>>> I would have to argue that a shot
>>>>> from a steep angle behind would not blast through Kennedy's head and
>>>>> out through his face
>>
>>>> I`ve seen nothing presented establishing that a shot from the 6th
>>>> floor must exit Kennedy`s face, have you?
>>
>>> So any bullet shot from the GK or another position in front, according
>>> to Nutters, has to pass through Kennedy's right side of his head and
>>> out the other side, but a bullet shot from the TSBD is allowed to
>>> enter the back of Kennedy's head at a downward angle but not exit out
>>> the front of his head? It somehow gets "deflected" out the top of his
>>> head, like all magic bullets shot from the TSBD, it behaves in most
>>> unusual ways, and just does its own thing. I don't have a problem with
>>> Kennedy's face being intact allowing for a headshot from the TSBD, but
>>> why the double standards? But I keep forgetting, if your a Lone
>>> Nutter, black is white, and white is black.
>>
>> Welcome to the wacky world of the WC defenders where hypocrisy reigns.
>> They claim something is impossible if a conspiracy believer proposes it,
>
> The reason for that is that conspiracy believers propose impossible
> things.
>
Then the WC defenders propose equally impossible things.
>> then advance exactly the same idea when they need it. They say a bullet
>> from the grassy knoll can not move the head back and to the left, then
>> claim that a bullet from behind pushed the head 2.3 inches in less than
>> half a Zapruder frame.
>
> Nice strawman. I can't recall seeing anyone claim a bullet cannot push
> a body a few inches. The LN position is it cannot push a body as far
> back as JFK went. Another force had to be exerted to have caused that.
There you go again falsely using the word "body." And when I point out
your error you'll say you meant only upper torso. Stop making the error
and just say upper torso in the first place.
> I'd like to see you point to one experiment which shows a transiting
> bullet moving an object the weight of JFK's head and torso back the
> distance JFK moved. But good luck ever getting a CT to conduct an
Another false challenge. It is not the entire torso.
> experiment which demonstrates any of their theories. It is much easier
> to make unfounded claims.
>
I can conduct the experiment as long as you don't set up false conditions.
Anthony Marsh
> On Dec 31, 10:15 am, Thalia<thaliac...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>> from a steep angle behind would not blast through Kennedy's head and
>>>> but that a shot from the grassy knoll would have to keep going through
>>>> to the left of Kennedy's head and destroy the left hemisphere of his
>>
>>> The SBT and the jet effect are hardly ridiculous. And JFK's shirt and
>>> jacket ARE bunched up, just moments before the shooting; several
>>> pictures very plainly show this. And once the bullet entered his
>>> skull, the fragments left over from the explosion could have just
>>> about exited anywhere.
>>
>>
>>> - Show quoted text -
>>
>
> and the holes in the coat and shirt are very close to the same
> distance from their respective collars, use common sense.
>
>
So, you don't know so you guess. That's fun.
>
> Great
>> tailor the President had. Imagine sitting with a business shirt on and
>> it bunches up at your shoulders, folding over itself. It just doesn't
>> happen. Look at where the bullet holes are in both his shirt and
>> jacket, way too low to come out at his adam apple. You are just being
>> dishonest with yourself. His jacket had a slight deformity in it,
>> possible accounting for a discprecency of a few mm's. Thats all. Tell
>> your "Once the bullet entered his skull the fragments left over could
>> have just about exited anywhere" story to your Lone Nut mates - they
>> think it could have only exited the left side of his head.
>
> No they don't. They say that IF he was shot from the right front. Any
> reasonable person can see that a bullet entering the right rear of
> JFK's head could easily exit on the right side, since his head was
> turned slightly to his left, and he was leaning toward his left. Maybe
> that's why you can't see it.
>
SO, in order to refute his complaint you have to explain the situation
in more detail. But you won't allow conspiracy believers to do the same.
> Mark
>
>
John Blubaugh
Your ballistics expert has never seen a man shot by a sniper much less
dozens of them. You can believe any psuedo-expert you want but I have
done a lot of shooting in my life and I never had a deer or an elk
violently jump back towards me. I did see some hit with neck and head
shots react violently in the other direction. So, I'll just guess that
you just don't know what in the hell you are talking about as usual.
You would make-up anything to justify the WR.
JB
John Blubaugh
>
> - Show quoted text -
You can run all over the place and I saw the back and to the left
movement long before JFK came out and so did millions of other
Americans. You lost this battle long ago and the only person you
delude is yourself. Back and to the left, it is there and it has
always been there.
JB
Anthony Marsh
That's wonderful, but it doesn't prove anything. You failed to name your
frame and show me the jacket bunched up at that frame. As I said before
many times we can see the jacket bunched up at different amounts at
different times. None of those are relevant to the exact moment he was
hit. And what happened to your claim about you seeing JFK's shirt bunched
up? Did you see that in Groden's book? Page number?
> Mark
>
Jean
> Check out the Croft and other photos here:
>
> http://karws.gso.uri.edu/JFK/JFK.html
Sorry, that didn't work. To get to the photos, click "Issues
and evidence" on the left, then "JFK's back/shoulder wound," then
"Part III."
Jean
John Blubaugh
>
> - Show quoted text -
Nope, not of those. I had made my mind up long before that. I happen to
think Tony does a good job of articulating the details and he is much more
familiar with them than I am. I am not a researcher, just an observer. I
have observed huge does of crap put out by you and LN WR apologists.
JB
John Blubaugh
This is silly. I have been posting here for many years. I wasn't reading
anything from Tony when I mistakenly said that the wound I described was
in the temple and he quickly corrected me and reminded me it was above the
eye.
JB
bigdog
A few days ago you rightly observed that there was a defect in JFK's
temple, then Marsh tells you it is in the forehead and you immediately
begin parroting what he told you. Marsh speaks and you mimic. Tell us one
thing you think Marsh is wrong about.
bigdog
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Oh, others made the observation, but Stone turned it into a mantra which
has become religous dogma for the CTs. "Back and to the left, back and to
the left. Hallelujah, Brother".
markmark
Photos taken seconds before the shooting show much more than a few mms.
Check out Groden's own book; there are several.
Tell
> >> your "Once the bullet entered his skull the fragments left over could
> >> have just about exited anywhere" story to your Lone Nut mates - they
> >> think it could have only exited the left side of his head.
>
> > No they don't. They say that IF he was shot from the right front. Any
> > reasonable person can see that a bullet entering the right rear of
> > JFK's head could easily exit on the right side, since his head was
> > turned slightly to his left, and he was leaning toward his left. Maybe
> > that's why you can't see it.
>
> SO, in order to refute his complaint you have to explain the situation
> in more detail. But you won't allow conspiracy believers to do the same.
>
> > Mark
What do you mean I won't allow it? CTs are allowed to say anything
they want.
Mark
bigdog
>
> - Show quoted text -
We don't have to make up anything. We are using the same evidence the WC
presented to make its case 45 years ago. We don't have to keep changing
our story or making up new ones to keep things fresh. We've stuck to the
same boring story for all these years. Oswald stuck his rifle out the
window and shot and killed the President of the United States. Very
simple. Very straight forward. Everything the evidence indicates happened.
Not nearly as interesting as the myriad of conspiracy theories, but it has
one thing the others don't. The truth.
bigdog
Yes, even a dum-dum bullet which will fragment upon impact but the
fragments will fan out, much like the cone shaped pattern of fragments
which went through JFK's cranium. No bullet could have caused the
extensive damage to JFK's head without leaving telltale evidence of the
direction the bullet traveled and the type of bullet used.
bigdog
> On 1/1/2010 12:14 AM, bigdog wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Dec 31, 6:51 pm, John Blubaugh<jbluba...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> On Dec 30, 7:30 pm, davidemerling<davidemerl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>> On Dec 30, 2:31 pm, Thalia<thaliac...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>>> Do you EVER think to youself: Gee, I have to come up with some
> >>>> convoluted, far-fetched explanations to believe LHO acted alone.
>
> >>> Can you tell us, conclusively, where these other gunmen were located?
> >>> Who where they? Were any bullets recovered from their weapons? Have
> >>> you found any of their weapons? Do you have witnesses who SAW them
> >>> shooting from these locations? What is your explanation as to why the
> >>> autopsy only indicated shots from behind?
>
> >> The autopsy was a fraud and this was a professional assassin. He
> >> didn't leave any weapons. Many people reacted to shots coming from the
> >> grassy knoll area.
>
> > A professional assassin would not have been dumb enough to pick a
> > shooting location that is out in the open with no clear path of
> > escape.
>
> It wasn't out in the open. No one saw him shooting. YOU can't even see him.
>
Of course no one saw him shooting because "him" wasn't there. Somebody
should have seen him shooting. Lee Bowers should have seen him and he saw
no one there at the time of the shooting. The people who rushed to the
area behind the fence from the overpass should have seen someone there.
They didn't see anyone behind the fence. Now tell us how this guy escaped
by showing his SS Id to the cop who ran up he hill. Just how did he manage
to get on that side of the fence. Did he jump over it wearing his suit and
tie?
>
>
>
>
> >>> At least I have a suspect who has a name. There is evidence
> >>> implicating him. I think most fair-minded people would say the
> >>> evidence is compelling.
>
> >> So do we. He flashed a fake SS credential when stopped by the police.
> >> But there were not any SS people on the knoll. That is your shooter
> >> and Marsh has been naming him for years.
>
> > Still sipping Marsh's Kool-aid?
>
> >>> You have whispers, ghosts, shadows, lollipops and puppy dog tails.
>
> >> No, we have a real live person who was on the knoll and claimed to be
> >> SS. He was not.
>
> >>>> You have to accept the preposperous SBT AND the ridiculous "jet effect."
>
> >>> You think the wounds sustained by Connally came from a separate shot?
> >>> Where did that shot originate? From behind? How could it have possibly
> >>> missed Kennedy?
>
> >> Not my theory but Connally was a small distance to Kennedy's left. The
> >> shot could have missed him.
>
> > OMG, now you are even using Marsh's words. "Not my theory but...". How
> > many times have we heard Marsh use that expression.
>
> How do you know its not just an alias or clone of me?
>
The thought had crossed my mind but I didn't want to sound like a paranoid
CT by making the accusation. Only you know whether you and John Blubaugh
are one and the same.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >>>> I would have to argue that a shot
> >>>> from a steep angle behind would not blast through Kennedy's head and
> >>>> out through his face [it would would somehow blast upwards instead],
> >>>> but that a shot from the grassy knoll would have to keep going through
> >>>> to the left of Kennedy's head and destroy the left hemisphere of his
> >>>> brain.
>
> >>> The bullet's deflection from it's entry to it's exit is not very great
> >>> and not all that unexpected. It was deflected upwards but it most
> >>> certainly continue FORWARD. Would you have been surprised if Kennedy
> >>> had been shot from behind (as indicated) and the entire frontal area
> >>> of of his head was completely intact? I would! Equally, I would have
> >>> been surprised (along with every other rationale person) if Kennedy
> >>> had been shot from the right and the entire left side of his head was
> >>> completely intact. That would be much more than a "deflection" -
> >>> wouldn't you agree?
>
> >>> If Kennedy was shot in the head from the grassy knoll, then where was
> >>> the exit wound?
>
> >> With the correct ammunition there doesn't have to be an exit would.
> >> Where is your exit would from the shot you say came from behind? There
> >> isn't one.
>
> > There either has to be an exit wound or a bullet in the body. It's a
> > binary choice.
>
> Wrong. James Brady didn't have an exit wound.
>
No, I'm right. James Brady had a bullet that lodged in the back of his
skull. It's an either/or proposition. It won't be both.
>
>
>
>
> >>> You can repeat your doubts as much as you want with your hyperbolic
> >>> language. You can scream it from the hilltops. It doesn't change the
> >>> simple FACT that all the strong evidence in this case lines up against
> >>> Oswald. To conclude the complete opposite, based on this evidence, is
> >>> simply throwing your common sense out the window.
>
> >>> David Emerling
> >>> Memphis, TN
>
> >> That is only because the people we are talking to are blind, deaf and
> >> DUMB.
>
> > At least we are able to do our own thinking.- Hide quoted text -
>
bigdog
Here's another chance for you to win $100. Point to where I have given
conflicting statements about where the back wound was. I have always said
it is exactly where the autopsy photo shows it to be.
> >> 4. There is a wound above his eye with a semi-circular defect that
> >> says "entrance wound". Why do you keep denying this? Oh, yeah, if he
> >> was shot there it could hardly have come from behind could it.
>
> > There was no wound above his eye. That is as ridiculous as it gets. A
> > bullet wound above the eye would have been obvious to everyone at
> > Parkland, everyone at Bethesda, would have been obvious in the autopsy
> > photos and obvious in the x-rays. It did not show up in any of those.
> > Are you capable of thinking for yourself or are you just going to
> > regurgitate whatever BS Marsh feeds you.
>
> It does show up in the autopsy photos and the X-rays. The fact that you
> are the only person who can't see it tells us something about your
> agenda here.
>
Just about everyone on this board with the exception of you and your alter
ego, John Blubaugh, think the bullet hole in the forehead is silly. Have
you noticed you've gotten a lot of help with the turkey of a claim.
bigdog
Are you accusing us of lying as good as you guys?
> >> then advance exactly the same idea when they need it. They say a bullet
> >> from the grassy knoll can not move the head back and to the left, then
> >> claim that a bullet from behind pushed the head 2.3 inches in less than
> >> half a Zapruder frame.
>
> > Nice strawman. I can't recall seeing anyone claim a bullet cannot push
> > a body a few inches. The LN position is it cannot push a body as far
> > back as JFK went. Another force had to be exerted to have caused that.
>
> There you go again falsely using the word "body." And when I point out
> your error you'll say you meant only upper torso. Stop making the error
> and just say upper torso in the first place.
>
Last I checked, the upper torso is part of the body.
> > I'd like to see you point to one experiment which shows a transiting
> > bullet moving an object the weight of JFK's head and torso back the
> > distance JFK moved. But good luck ever getting a CT to conduct an
>
> Another false challenge. It is not the entire torso.
>
Since I specifically said head and torso in this statement you have to
shift gears and making an equally ridiculous statement. So tell us Dr.
Marsh. If only part of his torso moved backward, which part remained in a
forward leaning position. I anxiously await how you are going to try to
climb out of this hole that you've dug.
> > experiment which demonstrates any of their theories. It is much easier
> > to make unfounded claims.
>
> I can conduct the experiment as long as you don't set up false conditions.
I leave it to you to set up any conditions you want. I put no constraints
on you. I'd love for once to see any CT just once try to prove their
ridiculous claims. Conduct your experiment anyway you want. Just show us
how a bullet could move an object the weight of JFK's head and whatever
part of his torso you believe actually lurched hard to the rear. Just be
careful not to shoot yourself in the foot. But I'm not making that a
condition. If you think it will help your argument, go ahead and shoot
yourself in the foot.
HistorianDetective
Jean
Thanks for posting this which clearly shows BUNCHING. Why this issue keeps
coming up is beyond comprehension.
Here's the URL address for that page.
http://karws.gso.uri.edu/JFK/issues_and_evidence/back_wound/Bunching--John_Hunt/Bunching3--
To get any direct URL Address...
Right click the page. Click on Properties. Look for Address.URL. Copy
and paste.
JM
Bud
I`d be surprised if he hadn`t seen and studied film of people being
shot.
>You can believe any psuedo-expert
Chief of Wound Ballistics for the U.S. Army at Edgewood Arsenal. Your
Dad`s credentials were what again?
>you want but I have
> done a lot of shooting in my life and I never had a deer or an elk
> violently jump back towards me. I did see some hit with neck and head
> shots react violently in the other direction. So, I'll just guess that
> you just don't know what in the hell you are talking about as usual.
> You would make-up anything to justify the WR.
Yah, I even went and faked this footage of actual people being
shot...
WARNING: THE FOLLOWING LINKS ARE TO BRUTAL FOOTAGE.
This is a video of Iraqi soldiers executing five kurds by firing squad.
Note that despite being riddled by high caliber automatic fire, the bodies
are not thrown back by it. But the part most relevant to our discussion is
when the officer starts shooting the limp bodies in the head. Perhaps John
can explain why they barely move, when according to him they should be
thrown violently away from the shooter.
http://www.ebaumsworld.com/video/watch/264679/
One more, four men executed by firing squad. Note that despite not
being tied or restrained, they merely slump, they aren`t thrown
violently back. I never saw an execution film with a gaffer until I
saw this one.
> JB
WhiskyJoe
Post by Yeuhd On Dec 30, 2:31 pm
Very good post.
> Jet effect? That was Luiz Alvarez's
> theory. But when is the last time
> you heard anyone here attribute the
> head movement to a jet effect?
I believe a fair number of LNers here
still believe the backwards movement
was caused by a combination of
Jet Effect and Neurological Spasm.
A few may even believe it was all
caused by the Jet Effect. I myself
believe the backward movement was
all caused by the Neurological Spasm,
with no significant contribution from
the Jet Effect.
> The photos of JFK's jacket and collar
> taken in the minutes and seconds
> before the shots don't lie. The fold
> has to be only two inches "high"
> (two inches on each side of the fold)
> to create a four-inch
> displacement.
Good point. And it's four inches
minimum. A two inch fold could cause
a six inch discrepancy. Two inches
up, two inches sideways, two inches
down.
****************************************
Post from Thalia, On Dec 30, 10:18 pm:
> I would have to argue that a shot
> from a steep angle behind would not
> blast through Kennedy's head and
> out through his face [it would would
> somehow blast upwards instead], ...
Hard to understand what this means.
From Oswald's angle, JFK's head was
turned a good deal to the left, so
it was possible for a shot to hit
the center of the back of the head
and exit the right side of his head,
between the ear and eye.
The downward angle was not that steep,
about 13 degrees relative to the
limousine, 16 degrees relative to
the horizon.
There was some deflection, upwards.
But ballistic tests show that bullet
fragments do deflect a large amount,
with curved paths, so this is quite
possible.
Bud
I don`t doubt that Kennedy`s movements after being shot convinced many
people that he was shot from the knoll. The question is whether what
swayed these people, that a person must be driven violently away from the
direction the shots came from is true or not. I think the following video
shows conclusively that it isn`t true that a person`s head is necessarily
driven away from the source of the shots.
WARNING: LINK LEADS TO EXTREMELY GRAPHIC AND BRUTAL VIDEO.
The victim`s head clearly move towards the shooter after each shot.
> JB
WhiskyJoe
> John Blubaugh, On Dec 30, 3:29 pm:
> The slow forward movement is due to the
> braking of the limo and everyone else
> in the car is moving forward too.
> Where they all shot in the back of
> the head at the same time?
Check out the large picture two thirds
the way down:
http://users.skynet.be/mar/Eng/Headshot/back&left-eng.htm#Sommet
showing 312 and 313, with white lines.
Only JFK moved forward. No one else did.
And the movement was not slow. The 2 inch
forward movement for Z312-313 is faster
than the head ever moved backwards.
And a sudden two inch movement caused by
brakes corresponds to a braking force
of 4 G's, about ten times the braking
force the real brakes could have
exerted.
Bud
Of course it is relevant, the bunching at any time shows there is no
real reason to expect that the holes in the clothing can be used to
place the hole in Kennedy`s body.
WhiskyJoe
> So explain to me what force propelled
> Kennedy backwards as we see in the
> Z-film.
A neurological spasm. All of JFK's
movement is consistent with
a neurological spasm:
* the head going backwards
* the torso going backwards
* the right arm going upwards,
with an initial speed greater than
the head ever moved.
A spurious signal traveled down
his spinal cord telling all muscles
to contract. The stronger muscles
won out.
If this explanation is false, then
what caused JFK's right arm to
fly upwards?
> Why would a shot have to destroy the
> left hemisphere of his brain, when a
> shot from the TSBD would not keep going
> and destroy Kennedy's face?
If JFK was facing directly away from
Oswald, at shot to the center of the
back of the head would have to exit
the face, if the fragments traveled
in a straight line.
But Oswald was facing to his left by
about 30 degrees. So a straight line
path won't exit the center of the
face. It will exit the right side of
the head between the right ear and
the right eye.
> Skull and brain matter blasted backwards
No, look at frame 313:
http://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z313.jpg
Debris is moving forward and upward.
> - Jackie leaped onto the trunk to
> retrieve a piece of brain she saw fly off.
No. In none of the Zapruder frames is
part of a brain or skull visible on
the trunk.
WhiskyJoe
> The distance and velocity of the head
> movement backward are much greater
> than the distance and velocity of the
> head movement forward. So, no, they
> are not comparable.
Hello yeuhd
Actually, the key difference is mass.
LNers say JFK's head could be pushed
forward during Z312-313 at 2 MPH.
This is reasonable because it is only
the head that moves forward. The torso
stays still. Just half the momentum of
a WCC/MC bullet could push the head
alone at 2 MPH.
But the backwards motion involves
the head, the torso, the entire upper
body, over ten times the weight of the
head. The WCC/MC bullet nor any other
anti personal bullet could push the
head and torso at 1 MPH.
But a 2 MPH movement of the head alone
is possible.
John Blubaugh
>
> - Show quoted text -
I don't believe he is wrong about anything. Now you, I believe, are
wrong about everything. I just remember the semi-circular hole and my
memory misplaced it. I acknowledged my mistake. Have you ever ever
apologized for one of yours? I didn't think so.
JB
John Blubaugh
>
> - Show quoted text -
There you go again stating your opinion as God given fact. You can say
it forever but no one believes it. The conspiracy theories had to be
brought forward and they are eliminated until eventually we will have
the truth. You don't care about the truth.
JB
John Blubaugh
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> Oh, others made the observation, but Stone turned it into a mantra which
> has become religous dogma for the CTs. "Back and to the left, back and to
>
> - Show quoted text -
I sent in a post the other day that summed up the LN creed rather
succinctly but, of course, McAdams refused to post it because it was
offensive. Now bear in mind is was a summary of LN arguments I have seen
here over the years and McAdams found it offensive. That should tell you
something. Thalia rather liked it when I sent it to her. Many of you are
far right of Attila the Hun and what really fuels your interest is your
hatred of the left and the Kennedy family in general. Some of you are out
right racists who resent blacks, hispanics and muslems. Some of you are
war mongers who would really like to see us attack Iran and North Korea
and perhaps even Syria. All of this is what really separates the LN from
CT. The nation made up its mind about this issue years ago and you aren't
going to change their minds no matter how you prattle on. Face it, the
battle for public opinion is over and you have lost. Raise the white flag
now and we will stop mercilessly pointing out how absurd your positions
are. You cannot see the WR for the lie that it was always intended to be.
I don't mind so much that they lied to everyone but now that the threat of
World War is past, I want them to own up to the error of their ways and
make the truth known. Is that so much to ask after 46+ years?
JB
Herbert Blenner
wrote:
> On Jan 1, 6:12 pm, Jean <jean.davis...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Jan 1, 3:43 pm, Jean <jean.davis...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > Check out the Croft and other photos here:
>
> > >http://karws.gso.uri.edu/JFK/JFK.html
>
> > Sorry, that didn't work. To get to the photos, click "Issues
> > and evidence" on the left, then "JFK's back/shoulder wound," then
> > "Part III."
> > Jean
>
> Jean
>
> Thanks for posting this which clearly shows BUNCHING. Why this issue keeps
> coming up is beyond comprehension.
The bunching issue is a safe diversion from an highly embarrassing
problem.
Under the direction of Commander Humes, H. A. Rydberg drew a picture
of the bullet hole on President Kennedy's back. This drawing, CE 386,
shows the longer axis of the bullet hole nearly parallel to the spinal
column.
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh16/html/WH_Vol16_0501a.htm
Guided by the autopsy photographs, Ida Dox drew a picture of the
bullet wound on Kennedy's back.
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol7/html/HSCA_Vol7_0048a.htm
The Dox drawing shows the longer axis of the abrasion approximately
perpendicular to the spinal column and ninety degrees from the
direction of the longer axis of the bullet hole shown on the Rydberg
drawing.
Doctor Michael Baden confirmed the alignment of the longer axis of the
abrasion with the spinal column as shown on the Dox.
Mr. KLEIN. And the panel found an abrasion collar on the wound of the
President's back of the kind you have shown us in these drawings?
Dr. BADEN. Yes, sir. This represents a diagram, a blowup of the actual
entrance perforation of the skin showing an abrasion collar. The
abrasion collar is wider toward 3 o'clock than toward 9 o'clock, which
would indicate a directionality from right to left and toward the
middle part of the body, which was the impression of the doctors on
reviewing the photographs initially at the Archives.
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol1/html/HSCA_Vol1_0098
b.htm
Based upon the abrasion, not the abrasion collar, surrounding the
bullet hole as seen in the autopsy photographs the doctors concluded
that the bullet entered the back on an inward and leftward course.
However, members of the FPP who studied the actual collar separating
the bullet hole from the abrasion confirmed the alignment reported by
the Rydberg drawing.
(465) A red-brown to black area of skin surrounds the wound, forming
what is called an abrasion collar. It was caused by the bullet's
scraping the margins of the skin on penetration and is characteristic
of a gunshot wound of entrance. The abrasion collar is larger at the
lower margin of the wound, evidence that the bullet's trajectory at
the instant of penetration was slightly upward in relation to the
body.
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol7/html/HSCA_Vol7_0093a.htm
The features of the abrasion collar placed the entering bullet on a
course inward and toward the head.
For a detailed discussion of this topic see parts two and three of the
following link.
http://mysite.verizon.net/a1eah71/punchingholes.htm
Herbert
>
> Here's the URL address for that page.http://karws.gso.uri.edu/JFK/issues_and_evidence/back_wound/Bunching-...
Anthony Marsh
> On Dec 31 2009, 9:15 am, Thalia<thaliac...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> The SBT and the jet effect are hardly ridiculous. And JFK's shirt and
>>> jacket ARE bunched up, just moments before the shooting; several
>>> pictures very plainly show this. And once the bullet entered his
>>> skull, the fragments left over from the explosion could have just
>>> about exited anywhere.
>>
>>
>>> - Show quoted text -
>>
>> tailor the President had. Imagine sitting with a business shirt on and
>> it bunches up at your shoulders, folding over itself. It just doesn't
>> happen.
>
> showing JFK in a business shirt that bunched and folded over the back of
> his collar:
>
> http://i48.tinypic.com/2h4avyc.jpg
>
> http://i50.tinypic.com/95yauq.jpg
>
Were those taken during the motorcade? No, therefore they are
irrelevant. And without the jacket there is nothing to keep the shirt
from bunching up. But the only reason why WC defenders keep bringing up
bunching is to try to defend the WC lie that the bullet hole was higher
than we can see it on the autopsy photos. The HSCA forensic panel had
the autopsy photos and concluded that the back wound was just slightly
higher than the throat wound at the moment the bullet hit. Their ONLY
way to then get a downward trajectory was to lie and claim that JFK was
leaning over by 18 degrees. Unfortunately for them the acoustical
evidence said the shot hit at Z-190 when we can see that he is upright,
not leaning over by 18 degrees.
>> Look at where the bullet holes are in both his shirt and
>> jacket, way too low to come out at his adam apple.
>
> His adam's apple is well below the shoulder line:
>
Are you claiming that the throat wound was at the level of the Adam's apple?
>
>> You are just being
>> dishonest with yourself. His jacket had a slight deformity in it,
>> possible accounting for a discprecency of a few mm's. Thats all.
>
> Check out the Croft and other photos here:
>
JFK was not hit at the time of the Croft photo, equal to Z-161.
> http://karws.gso.uri.edu/JFK/JFK.html
>
> Incidentally, the author of that article believes in a
> conspiracy.
>
Wow. And the HSCA said conspiracy, but they had their own SBT.
> One reason for going with the SBT is that the alternative
> is... what exactly? Two bullets from front and rear, each of which
> penetrated only a short distance and then disappeared? Were the
> killers trying to peck him to death?
>
No, the real alternative is what the FBI said and the WC thought up
until April 1964. Kennedy hit by the first bullet and Connally hit by
the second bullet.
> Happy new year, Thalia and all.
>
> Jean
>
Anthony Marsh
Part of. But when you just say body you mean the entire body.
That's why the word torso exist, to describe one part of the body.
>
>>> I'd like to see you point to one experiment which shows a transiting
>>> bullet moving an object the weight of JFK's head and torso back the
>>> distance JFK moved. But good luck ever getting a CT to conduct an
>>
>> Another false challenge. It is not the entire torso.
>>
>
> Since I specifically said head and torso in this statement you have to
> shift gears and making an equally ridiculous statement. So tell us Dr.
> Marsh. If only part of his torso moved backward, which part remained in a
> forward leaning position. I anxiously await how you are going to try to
> climb out of this hole that you've dug.
>
Not what I said. The torso pivots at the hips. So it is not the entire
torso which moves backwards several inches.
>>> experiment which demonstrates any of their theories. It is much easier
>>> to make unfounded claims.
>>
>> I can conduct the experiment as long as you don't set up false conditions.
>
> I leave it to you to set up any conditions you want. I put no constraints
No. No matter how many tests I do with many conditions you will always
claim that do not meet your qualifications. So state your qualifications
first.
> on you. I'd love for once to see any CT just once try to prove their
> ridiculous claims. Conduct your experiment anyway you want. Just show us
> how a bullet could move an object the weight of JFK's head and whatever
> part of his torso you believe actually lurched hard to the rear. Just be
Name your pounds.
claviger
OK, we beg for mercy. What is The Truth that is so obvious to you?
Please mercifully answer the following questions. Or you can even
mercilessly answer them if you prefer. A sniper shot at the President
from the GK. The HSCA says he missed. You say he didn't miss. So why
did none of the witnesses closest to the position on the GK not hear
or see this sniper? What kind of weapon did he use? How did he get
away with the weapon in hand and no one saw him leaving the scene? If
it was a fake SS guy with phony credentials what happened to the
weapon? Tell us about the trajectory and the type of ammo used.
Explain why the SBT doesn't work when field testing proved it was not
only possible, but probable based on scientific results. And how did
two different snipers from behind the Limousine used a trajectory so
close together you can't tell them apart. Where were these two snipers
located and what kind of weapons did they use? How did they fire these
weapons without attracting attention? Did LHO even fire a shot, or did
someone else fire it for him? Is so why did he run if he thought his
rifle was still in Ruth Paine's garage? Tell us how the Zapruder film
was altered to match all the other home movies taken that day. How did
surgeons patch up the wounds on Air Force One enough to fool the
autopsy doctors? And why go to all this trouble when setting up a
patsy and bumping him off was accomplished anyway?
Anthony Marsh
The problem is that Baden lied and said that the semi-circular defect is
on the partietal bone on the margin of the coronal suture.
>