Moderated JFK conspiracy theories: it never ends III

Status
Not open for further replies.
Jango said:
The President's head/body movement and brain matter exiting out the back of his head and unto the trunk is a dead giveaway of a frontal headshot though.
Click to expand...

Having been a trained military combat medic for 12 years, and after serving over two years in an active war zone, I can categorically state that you, sir, are incorrect. Wrong. Mistaken. Confident in ignorance. Making unwarranted and unevidenced assertions. Displaying an appaling lack of understanding of the subject matter. Feel free to continue this train of thought until it sticks.

Look up something called "cavitation" as it applies to ballistics.

Consider the effects of caviation on a jello-like medium, such as a brain, enclosed in something rigid, like a skull.

Revisit your statement with this information in mind.
 
Jango said:
Tell me how to turn on quote notifications so I can bypass those stupid childish accusations of "running away".
Click to expand...
Reading and answering the posts will accomplish the same thing.

And sorry, no, I do not have an answer for you as to where the frontal shot specifically came from. The President's head/body movement and brain matter exiting out the back of his head and unto the trunk is a dead giveaway of a frontal headshot though.
Click to expand...
Unless you've just made up your own cartoon physics, you should easily be able to tell where from the front the shot came from based on the expulsion if it's such a dead giveaway.

So, where specifically did the shot come from?
 
Jango said:
Tell me how to turn on quote notifications so I can bypass those stupid childish accusations of "running away".

And sorry, no, I do not have an answer for you as to where the frontal shot specifically came from. The President's head/body movement and brain matter exiting out the back of his head and unto the trunk is a dead giveaway of a frontal headshot though.
Click to expand...
Watching the Zapruder film from frame 313, I sure see a hell of lot of tissue and blood from the skull blowout going forward and up, and very little going backwards.
 
BazBear said:
Watching the Zapruder film from frame 313, I sure see a hell of lot of tissue and blood from the skull blowout going forward and up, and very little going backwards.
Click to expand...

Hey, he never said that there wasn't also a shot from behind, just that there was also a shot from the front.

And they just happen to hit at the exact same time, which is why some goes forward and some goes back.

(seriously, that has actually been suggested, that the front and back shots hit at exactly the same time; amazing timing, down to the centisecond; then again, pretty much every loopy thing you can think of has been proposed by some conspiracy nut, up to and including the claim that Jackie did it (not that Jackie had him killed, but that she pulled the trigger); now, you may say that is the stupidest thing you've ever heard, and you could be right, but you never know how much more whacko things can be)
 
BazBear said:
Watching the Zapruder film from frame 313, I sure see a hell of lot of tissue and blood from the skull blowout going forward and up, and very little going backwards.
Click to expand...

Yeah, the pink mist shot. President Kennedy does his back and to the left movement, then Mrs. Kennedy scrambles onto the hood of the trunk to retrieve chunks of her husband's brain. Him being shot from behind does not explain 1) his bodily movements or 2) the ejected brain matter onto the hood of the trunk.
 
Jango said:
Yeah, the pink mist shot. President Kennedy does his back and to the left movement, then Mrs. Kennedy scrambles onto the hood of the trunk to retrieve chunks of her husband's brain. Him being shot from behind does not explain 1) his bodily movements or 2) the ejected brain matter onto the hood of the trunk.
Click to expand...

Still no evidence of your claim. Only evidence of a lack of knowledge. He was not shot from the front; and the film is not evidence for that BS claim. 50 years of BS from JFK CTers. No evidence, only big talk based on ignornace.

Watching too many fictional accounts of "JFK". Back and to the BS.
 
Jango said:
Yeah, the pink mist shot. President Kennedy does his back and to the left movement, then Mrs. Kennedy scrambles onto the hood of the trunk to retrieve chunks of her husband's brain. Him being shot from behind does not explain 1) his bodily movements or 2) the ejected brain matter onto the hood of the trunk.
Click to expand...

Proof? Not that I'm holding my breath because you've already been schooled on this popular assertion with no apparent effect, but here goes again - NSFW -



Contact wound to the head, .38 special, watch how the body collapses and only then does the head move, and there is no head movement at all at the moment the shot was fired.

And here's this one for the umpteenth time



Point blank shot to the body armor with 7.62 NATO out of a FAL doesn't knock the guy's body around. Point blank shot to the body armor w/ .44 mag out of an 8 3/8" barrel doesn't knock the guy's body around.

How many times are you going to serve up this softball nonsense on terminal ballistics before you either get educated or concede that your pov on GSW's comes from the movies and TV?

I'm pretty sure it was you on one of the earlier occasions where I posted the second clip that asserted that somehow in magical CT land there is a difference between a bullet strike to an unprotected body and a strike to body armor, and therefor that's why blah, blah, blah.

I didn't post it at the time because I've come to the conclusion that attempting to engage in actual discussions with CTers is nothing more than a waste of time, but here goes: there is a difference between being shot wearing BA and taking a hit unprotected.

The wearer of the BA takes 100% of the kinetic energy of the projectile, and the unprotected take only a fraction of the kinetic energy if it's a perforating wound, as in the JFK hits.

Please explain how the target taking 100% of a more powerful projectile moves less than the target taking only a fraction of the kinetic energy from the projectile, and as has been suggested up thread learn a bit about fluid dynamics wrt GSW's.

That little bit of learning is all you need to correctly answer the "backwards and to to left" crap that JFK CT hucksters have been selling to the segment of the population that learned physics through watching popular fiction.
 
Jango said:
Yeah, the pink mist shot. President Kennedy does his back and to the left movement, then Mrs. Kennedy scrambles onto the hood of the trunk to retrieve chunks of her husband's brain. Him being shot from behind does not explain 1) his bodily movements or 2) the ejected brain matter onto the hood of the trunk.
Click to expand...
It sounds like you're just going to ignore that the photographic evidence shows a lot of blood and tissue moving in generally forward and upward direction - and then attempt to use that very same photographic evidence - that shows some material moving rearward and ending up on the trunk - as proof of a shooter from the front.

I'm baffled how anyone could interpret the film in this manner, unless of course, they're watching it with the preconceived notion that there simply had to be a shooter in front.
 
Last edited:
Jango said:
Yeah, the pink mist shot. President Kennedy does his back and to the left movement, then Mrs. Kennedy scrambles onto the hood of the trunk to retrieve chunks of her husband's brain. Him being shot from behind does not explain 1) his bodily movements or 2) the ejected brain matter onto the hood of the trunk.
Click to expand...

So you have nothing to back up your claim of another shooter from the front?
 
Wait a second.
I see no evidence what so ever for the claim that the first lady was picking up bits of skull or brain on the back of the car. But let's pretend for a second she was. Does this mean a shot from the front?

Well having watched kids spitting out of the window of moving trains in my youth, I know something thrown upwards from a moving vehicle can land behind you, as the vehicle continues to travel while the object is in the air.

Why should this be disregarded in the case of JFK?
 
Tomtomkent said:
Wait a second.
I see no evidence what so ever for the claim that the first lady was picking up bits of skull or brain on the back of the car
Click to expand...

I'm pretty sure that's what she said she was doing, so I have no problem accepting it.

However, it means nothing
 
Jango, what is your opinion of the so-called "magic bullet" and are you aware that the actual seat arrangement of the 1961 Lincoln Continental limo in question makes the "magic bullet" not very "magic" at all? This isn't controversial, it's a simple fact, something you'd already know if you got your JFK facts from people other than conspiracy theorists. If there's any "JFK" conspiracy at all, it's a conspiracy among the conspiracy theorists to dismiss or even exclude these sorts of inconvenient truths from their fellow conspiracy believers. You are being duped by the very people you trust the most. It will likely take you many years to realize this, but that's the cold hard truth.
 
Tomtomkent said:
I see no evidence what so ever for the claim that the first lady was picking up bits of skull or brain on the back of the car.

pgwenthold said:
I'm pretty sure that's what she said she was doing, so I have no problem accepting it.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...


Not so fast... Mrs. Kennedy never said anything of the sort. Most of her recollection of the shooting was a blur and disjointed. There are *hearsay* claims by others - decades after the fact - that Mrs. Kennedy did this, or said that, but those claims would never suffice as evidence in a court of law, of course.

She *never* said anything remotely akin to the claim she retrieved a piece of skull or brain from the trunk of the limo, and of course, there's no evidence of any such item on the trunk in the Zapruder film (more evidence, no doubt conspiracists will argue, that the Zapruder film was altered).

And of course, that's all the conspiracists have in this case - hearsay, supposition, innuendo, conjecture, quotes out of context, and logical fallacies.

Hank
 
Last edited:
Sometimes, it's fun to read McAdams's site and see some of the really, really STUPID things that conspiricists have asserted.

One of my favorites that I was just reading about the claim (via Garrison and others) that the motorcade route was changed "at the last minute."

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/route.htm

McAdams says, according to Garrison's book, Garrison noticed that the motorcade route in the morning paper showed it going down Main and then onto the Stemmons Freeway to the Trade Mart. So why did it all of a sudden get changed to go down Houston and then turn onto Elm? Could it be so that it could go past the SBD? Hmmmm? Suspicious!

But not. In fact, there is a VERY good reason why the motorcade turned down Houston onto Elm - YOU CAN'T GET ON THE STEMMONS FREEWAY FROM MAIN!!!!!!

There's no on-ramp!

So if you are on Main and want to get on the freeway, you have to bump over to Elm.

All you have to do is go to Dealey Plaza and drive around, it's pretty obvious (I remember when we visited there that it was confusing driving because Main didn't get you where you wanted to be).

There are other issues with Garrison's claims (like how the map of the motorcade route made up 5/6 of the front page of the Dallas Morning News - it's more like 1/10 of the page )

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/dmntot.gif

So we know that Garrison is a liar, or at least makes stuff up, but the suggestion that the original route had the motorcade staying on Main to get on the freeway is total incompetence.
 
It has been suggested - by JayUtah, I think - that some of the conspiracy publishers may do this intentionally (present "smoking gun" misinformation) to make their product more appealing.

Problem is, the misinformation often becomes gospel among the true believers.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom