JFK Assassin's Rifle

[Gem1950]

I don't mean to be harsh, but do you know enough about what happened to discuss point by point? Your post does nothing more than rehash the conclusions and broad assertions of others.

There is an entrance wound at the base of the President's neck. We know it is an entrance wound because of sooting and clothing fibers being pushed inward. We know the bullet travelled through strap muscle in the President's neck and nicked his tie knot when exiting. The bullet yawed, as is common with the 6.5, and there just happens to be a sideways profile entrance wound in the governor's jacket and back. An elongated exit wound is present in the front, it happens to coincide with a jacket lapel that can be seen folding forward as he's hit. Despite the mock "hung in midair" foolishness knowingly peddled by the CT folks, we know based on Connolly's turned position and the jump seat configuration that all the bullet holes line up.

The bullet is not pristine, it's severely flattened with lead core extruding from its open base.

How does one shoot the Governor without going through the President? How is the elongated bullet wound into the Governor's back made shooting him directly?

A bullet passed through the President, back to front - where did it go?

*How else does one account for the wounds and the evidence produced by them?

This is why I love threads like this. We have C87 and BS being the bullies and Mr. dfletcher doing the soft sell. The classic good cop bad cop. It's beautiful. Take note boys and girls.

*How else does one account for conclusions from evidence that was altered, obscured, eliminated and created to conform to a preconceived story?

[dfletcher]

This is why I love threads like this. We have C87 and BS being the bullies and Mr. dfletcher doing the soft sell. The classic good cop bad cop. It's beautiful. Take note boys and girls.

*How else does one account for conclusions from evidence that was altered, obscured, eliminated and created to conform to a preconceived story?

Is that what we call posting facts, referencing things that actually happened in the way they happened - bullying and soft sell? I think folks do take notes, hope so anyway. I hope they note who posts facts and who posts pictures of monkeys and spacemen.

I'm curious, do you believe CT folks who favor a conspiracy other than your own are also part of the super secret power structure? If you believe the CIA killed the President then the folks who think Castro did it are just as wrong as the lone gunman folks - do I have that right? Or is there some sort of all encompassing conspiracy theory out there that has everyone hopping of to Khrushchev's dacha, meeting up with Jimmy Hoffa, Castro, Carlos Marcello and Dick Helms while Clay Shaw diddles the male help?

[Citadelgrad87]

This is why I love threads like this. We have C87 and BS being the bullies and Mr. dfletcher doing the soft sell. The classic good cop bad cop. It's beautiful. Take note boys and girls.

*How else does one account for conclusions from evidence that was altered, obscured, eliminated and created to conform to a preconceived story?

Yes, of course, stating the fact that it was an 88 yard measured shot is "bullying".

It's clear you use the ignore feature.

[B Strong]

This is why I love threads like this. We have C87 and BS being the bullies and Mr. dfletcher doing the soft sell. The classic good cop bad cop. It's beautiful. Take note boys and girls.

*How else does one account for conclusions from evidence that was altered, obscured, eliminated and created to conform to a preconceived story?

Let's get to the real reason you love these threads.

In all likelihood it's the only time anyone pays any attention to you.

[chuckdc]

Is that what we call posting facts, referencing things that actually happened in the way they happened - bullying and soft sell? I think folks do take notes, hope so anyway. I hope they note who posts facts and who posts pictures of monkeys and spacemen.

I'm curious, do you believe CT folks who favor a conspiracy other than your own are also part of the super secret power structure? If you believe the CIA killed the President then the folks who think Castro did it are just as wrong as the lone gunman folks - do I have that right? Or is there some sort of all encompassing conspiracy theory out there that has everyone hopping of to Khrushchev's dacha, meeting up with Jimmy Hoffa, Castro, Carlos Marcello and Dick Helms while Clay Shaw diddles the male help?

Don't forget George H.W. Bush. They started adding him to the conspiracy a while back. Might as will include his kid, and Dick Cheney (hey, someone DID get shot, after all) in there, too. Oh, and Halliburton and the Koch Brothers.

[Gem1950]

Is that what we call posting facts, referencing things that actually happened in the way they happened - bullying and soft sell? I think folks do take notes, hope so anyway. I hope they note who posts facts and who posts pictures of monkeys and spacemen.

I'm curious, do you believe CT folks who favor a conspiracy other than your own are also part of the super secret power structure? If you believe the CIA killed the President then the folks who think Castro did it are just as wrong as the lone gunman folks - do I have that right? Or is there some sort of all encompassing conspiracy theory out there that has everyone hopping of to Khrushchev's dacha, meeting up with Jimmy Hoffa, Castro, Carlos Marcello and Dick Helms while Clay Shaw diddles the male help?

Ah, again the soft sell. None of the above has anything to do with the cover-up and destruction of evidence by government agencies and the WC.
The thoughts/ideas about who did what, when, where and why are almost irrelevant compared to the ability to examine the facts unencumbered, without interference from those who are protecting their power and control.
For all of you joining us this is the crux of the matter and it is what the pro-gov. conspiracy folks desperately need to divert your attention away from. If they can confuse, and then bore you, to the point where you get distracted by something else and move on, they've accomplished their goal.

[Citadelgrad87]

Ah, again the soft sell. None of the above has anything to do with the cover-up and destruction of evidence by government agencies and the WC.
The thoughts/ideas about who did what, when, where and why are almost irrelevant compared to the ability to examine the facts unencumbered, without interference from those who are protecting their power and control.
For all of you joining us this is the crux of the matter and it is what the pro-gov. conspiracy folks desperately need to divert your attention away from. If they can confuse, and then bore you, to the point where you get distracted by something else and move on, they've accomplished their goal.

..none of which you have referenced other than in conclusory terms. Claims the government destroyed evidence without specifics is your way of pretending to discuss this without the danger of being proven wrong.

Why do you bother?

[B Strong]

..none of which you have referenced other than in conclusory terms. Claims the government destroyed evidence without specifics is your way of pretending to discuss this without the danger of being proven wrong.

Why do you bother?

See post 274...

In the general course of CT believer claptrap there comes a point where the proponent of a particular CT pov is asked to explain what exactly they're basing their opinion on, and in the overwhelming number of instances where I've been involved either online or in person, it becomes apparent that the sum of their knowledge is that they read a book or watched a youtube video that they agree with.

No review of the established facts (it's all lies!) no review of the bona fides of individuals making claims of conspiracy, no examination of the science or physics involved in whatever incident that is under discussion, and overall a strict adherence to the perfection fallacy:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nirvana_fallacy

In this case, we have a poster that while asserting knowledge refuses to explain their position, and resorts to shifting the burden of proof from himself to the reader - par for the course - and in the event that other individuals disagree with their unstated but vigorously asserted opinion those individuals couldn't possibly be better informed in the subject matter, they must be government agents of the conspiracy! Yeah, that's the ticket...

To the segment of the population that isn't deluded, the desperation on the part of the CT'er is clearly visible, but much like the old Monty Python bit:



They are the Black Night.

[bonusweb]

See post 274...

In the general course of CT believer claptrap there comes a point where the proponent of a particular CT pov is asked to explain what exactly they're basing their opinion on, and in the overwhelming number of instances where I've been involved either online or in person, it becomes apparent that the sum of their knowledge is that they read a book or watched a youtube video that they agree with.

No review of the established facts (it's all lies!) no review of the bona fides of individuals making claims of conspiracy, no examination of the science or physics involved in whatever incident that is under discussion, and overall a strict adherence to the perfection fallacy:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nirvana_fallacy

In this case, we have a poster that while asserting knowledge refuses to explain their position, and resorts to shifting the burden of proof from himself to the reader - par for the course - and in the event that other individuals disagree with their unstated but vigorously asserted opinion those individuals couldn't possibly be better informed in the subject matter, they must be government agents of the conspiracy! Yeah, that's the ticket...

To the segment of the population that isn't deluded, the desperation on the part of the CT'er is clearly visible, but much like the old Monty Python bit:



They are the Black Night.

Are any of you claiming you have access to the raw data, and the expertise/resources/equipment to correctly analyze the data. If you are honest you will say no.

Well then it comes down to trusting complete strangers that you know very little about. But we can however say that in general politicians and governments historicaly has been a very unreliable sources for truthful information.

So what comes government worship, something many democrats and republicans have in common.

I understand people need a higher power and something to believe in. But is government the best thing?

I understand how government is your mother, it provides your welfare, or paycheck. And as such you need to worship at the altar of the great provider god.

I can be somewhat more objective because I'm not a government employee.

http://blog.heritage.org/2012/06/05/more-than-40-percent-of-americans-are-on-some-government-program/

http://m.topix.com/forum/state/ca/TG5QS6TN2977KU7UI

[Citadelgrad87]

Are any of you claiming you have access to the raw data, and the expertise/resources/equipment to correctly analyze the data. If you are honest you will say no.

Well then it comes down to trusting complete strangers that you know very little about. But we can however say that in general politicians and governments historicaly has been a very unreliable sources for truthful information.

So what comes government worship, something many democrats and republicans have in common.

I understand people need a higher power and something to believe in. But is government the best thing?

I understand how government is your mother, it provides your welfare, or paycheck. And as such you need to worship at the altar of the great provider god.

I can be somewhat more objective because I'm not a government employee.

http://blog.heritage.org/2012/06/05/more-than-40-percent-of-americans-are-on-some-government-program/

http://m.topix.com/forum/state/ca/TG5QS6TN2977KU7UI

Consider California, which has the highest budget deficit in the history of the states. The not-so Golden State now has an incredible 2.4 million government employees—twice as many as people at work in manufacturing

Simplistic approach that you don't take in any other historical subject.

Taking your position at face value, how do we know about any historical event? Did we land on the moon? Did the nautilus circumnavigate the globe?

You keep arguing that the government is crappy in totally unrelated areas, therefore JFK was killed in a coup. You've now doubled down with the moronic government is my mother. Nice insult, but utter whiff.

Nut up here, say what you think happened. It's boring having you flit in and pretend to be sensitive, asking what about this or what about that. Either say what you think happened, specifically, and why you think that, or admit you cannot add anything to this discussion.

That's not the way adults look at things to decide what happened.

And I do have access to data, photos, films, news reel footage and news interviews, police records, and the interviews of those who have looked at the data, including pathologist Cyril Wecht, who believes there was a conspiracy but who viewed the original autopsy materials and agrees JFK was hit in the head by a single round fired from the rear, destroying the moronic back and to the left mantra, which of course is now largely abandoned in favor of the hickey idiocy.

[bonusweb]

Simplistic approach that you don't take in any other historical subject.

Taking your position at face value, how do we know about any historical event? Did we land on the moon? Did the nautilus circumnavigate the globe?

You keep arguing that the government is crappy in totally unrelated areas, therefore JFK was killed in a coup. You've now doubled down with the moronic government is my mother. Nice insult, but utter whiff.

Nut up here, say what you think happened. It's boring having you flit in and pretend to be sensitive, asking what about this or what about that. Either say what you think happened, specifically, and why you think that, or admit you cannot add anything to this discussion.

That's not the way adults look at things to decide what happened.

And I do have access to data, photos, films, news reel footage and news interviews, police records, and the interviews of those who have looked at the data, including pathologist Cyril Wecht, who believes there was a conspiracy but who viewed the original autopsy materials and agrees JFK was hit in the head by a single round fired from the rear, destroying the moronic back and to the left mantra, which of course is now largely abandoned in favor of the hickey idiocy.

Yes you have the stuff they decided to realse. If you find Wecht because he has a reputation for being unbiased and you respect that, I'm ok with that for you. Its possible that Wecht is legit. But the investigation was so completely mishandled with bias/incompetence, we may never know even if they release records and tapes like they did for golf of tonkin.

As for historical subjects, I keep giving the example of golf of tonkin. If I brought it up during the 60's you would have claimed consiracy theory. And you would have said you knew it happened, but as history has shown beyond all doubt it was just made up. As was the whole Tons of WMDs in Iraq. Nowadays the whole man made global Warming scam is another example.

[Citadelgrad87]

Yes you have the stuff they decided to realse. If you find Wecht because he has a reputation for being unbiased and you respect that, I'm ok with that for you. Its possible that Wecht is legit. But the investigation was so completely mishandled with bias/incompetence, we may never know even if they release records and tapes like they did for golf of tonkin.

As for historical subjects, I keep giving the example of golf of tonkin. If I brought it up during the 60's you would have claimed consiracy theory. And you would have said you knew it happened, but as history has shown beyond all doubt it was just made up. As was the whole Tons of WMDs in Iraq. Nowadays the whole man made global Warming scam is another example.

No. It was not mishandled. Certainly not to the level of questioning the conclusion that oswald was the sole shooter. I dispute that. I am more familiar with the facts than you are.

It is up to you to support your claim that the investigation was "so flawed" with SPECIFIC references to things you take issue with.


This isn't sixth grade where "the Warren Commission was a whitewash" is simply accepted without challenge.

Have you ever read the warren commission report?

thats a simple yes or no question. Please answer it.

[Gem1950]

The head wound as described by Dr Cyril Wecht - At 40:00 min.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-muQL-QPKeM

[Citadelgrad87]

The head wound as described by Dr Cyril Wecht - At 40:00 min.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-muQL-QPKeM

Wecht was interviewed by bugliosi and quoted at length. He believes there was a conspiracy but confirmed the x rays he saw were genuine post mortem films of jfk, and that the tabular fractutes confirm to a medical certainty that jfk was struck in the head by a single round traveling from rear exiting front. He also confirmed the autopsy was thorough and noted wound collaring, also indicative of shots entering the rear and exiting front.

stop posting youtube videos, say what you think.

[B Strong]

Are any of you claiming you have access to the raw data, and the expertise/resources/equipment to correctly analyze the data. If you are honest you will say no.

Well then it comes down to trusting complete strangers that you know very little about. But we can however say that in general politicians and governments historicaly has been a very unreliable sources for truthful information.

So what comes government worship, something many democrats and republicans have in common.

I understand people need a higher power and something to believe in. But is government the best thing?

I understand how government is your mother, it provides your welfare, or paycheck. And as such you need to worship at the altar of the great provider god.

I can be somewhat more objective because I'm not a government employee.

http://blog.heritage.org/2012/06/05/more-than-40-percent-of-americans-are-on-some-government-program/

http://m.topix.com/forum/state/ca/TG5QS6TN2977KU7UI

You have the burden of proof to prove your theory, and you only get to use established evidence, not hearsay, rumor or assertion to do so.

Have at it.

Until you or one of the other JFK CT'ers can do that, the null hypothesis of LHO as lone shooter will stand, it's as simple as that. No amount of hand waving or whining will get the job done, and as much as you'd like to carry on about myself or other posters being government agents I'm the only guy in this thread that has offered to meet in the RW, and I've got a pretty long history here at CG to fall back on - lots of members have met me, bought firearms from me and we've interacted out in the world. I actually am a real live Musician, Motorcyclist and Pistolero and am completely willing to discuss the issues here or elsewhere.

On the CT'er scorecard, I see two posters that don't even have the strength of their own stated convictions to stand on, as they refuse to state in full the who, what and why of their fantasy construct.

Maybe a little embarrassed that they've found out they aren't up to the job of discussing the issue with real live folks that know the material and cite same to prove their point.

Really - why are CT'ers so afraid to state their case?