JFK Conspiracy Theories: It Never Ends

Status
Not open for further replies.
Robert Prey said:
Dr. Wecht from day one surmised it was a frangible bullet. There were some 40 small pieces of metal at the front of JFK"s head in the alleged x-ray but no bullet which some claim is evidence of such an exploding bullet.
Click to expand...

Robert, one fundemantal problem is that you don't understand terms like "jet recoil effect", "downrange", and "frangible bullet".

Educate yourself before trying to convince others of your mad ideas. You'll sound more plausible if you are seen as knowlegable. (You'll still be wrong, but it won't be so obvious)
 
Noztradamus said:
Robert, one fundemantal problem is that you don't understand terms like "jet recoil effect", "downrange", and "frangible bullet".

Educate yourself before trying to convince others of your mad ideas. You'll sound more plausible if you are seen as knowlegable. (You'll still be wrong, but it won't be so obvious)
Click to expand...

I've never even used the terms "jet recoil effect" nor "downrange". Pay attention.
 
Walter Ego said:
"Taken from the HSCA collection" is the only correct thing Robert said here. Groden employed the five-finger discount to obtain the photo from which he turned a nice little profit.



The rest of Robert's post is either willfully obtuse or he is dissembling again. I have not been asking about the wound on the front of JFK's but if a large gaping exit wound is visable on the back of JFK's head in the Z film which, if Robert's theory of a frontal shot from the Grass Knoll is correct, must be visable. The Z film shows no such exit wound on the back of JFK's head. The Z film invalidates Robert's theory.

Robert is avoiding saying if he sees anything of the back of JFK's that even remotely resembles an exit wound as portrayed in that sketch "approved" by his beloved Dr. McCLellan that he himself posted. He can "see" Jackie Kennedy picking up an invisible piece of JFK's brain from the trunk of the limo but he can't tell us what he sees on the back of JFK's head.

My verdict: Robert is dissembling.
Click to expand...

More evidence of wound to the back of the head:



 
I must not have read enough of the really off the wall conspiracy theorists. I didn't realize there was anyone who denied that Oswald killed Tippit. That's a total denial of all reality. Didn't even Oliver Stone admit that?
 
Wow. Where is the evidence? Are you claiming the blood pooling on the seat means the wound was to the back of the head? Why is the back of the seat clean if the gore was from the back of JFK? Why has thepooled at the bottom of the seat as though there was something like a body between the seat and the. Wound? Where are the brains splattered across the trunk for Jackie to scoop up?

And why did you mistake Nostradamus suggresting you failed to understand effects for anythingthat you might have mentioned? Your posts can be flawed by a failed understanding of those terms precisely because you have not used them, or shown you understand the reality of processes you describe.
 
Rich_C said:
I must not have read enough of the really off the wall conspiracy theorists. I didn't realize there was anyone who denied that Oswald killed Tippit. That's a total denial of all reality. Didn't even Oliver Stone admit that?
Click to expand...

Rich, your lack of scholarship is showing.There are all kinds of problems with linking LHO to the death of Tippit.
 
Noztradamus said:
Robert, one fundemantal problem is that you don't understand terms like "jet recoil effect", "downrange", and "frangible bullet".

Educate yourself before trying to convince others of your mad ideas. You'll sound more plausible if you are seen as knowlegable. (You'll still be wrong, but it won't be so obvious)
Click to expand...

Perhaps it is you who needs some education:

Dum´dum bul´let
1. (Mil.) A kind of man-stopping bullet, designed to fragment inside the body and thus inflict a severed and painful wound; - so named from Dumdum, in India, where bullets are manufactured for the Indian army.
Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary, published 1913 by C. & G. Merriam Co.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Dumdum+bullet


Frangible ammunition
Frangible projectiles are specifically designed to break apart into small dust like particles when hitting hard structures--typically steel targets, and generally fall into two categories: training ammunition and Reduced Ricochet, Limited Penetration (RRLP or R2LP) loads. It is important to note that although frangible ammunition ideally disintegrates against a hard steel target, that does NOT mean it will break apart against/within less dense materials, including soft tissue.

Various types of frangible training ammunition have been available since WWII.

http://dictionary.sensagent.com/frangible+bullet/en-en/
 
Last edited:
So why is there a massive discharge from the front of JFKs head in the Z film?
Why was your "evidence" cropped to avoid showing the exit wound on the front of the head?
 
kookbreaker said:
So now dum-dum bullets are the same as frangible rounds that break up into tiny fragments? Yeah, not thinking that's right. Mushrooming of a bullet is not the same as a round that shatters or explodes.
Click to expand...


Dum´dum bul´let
1. (Mil.) A kind of man-stopping bullet, designed to fragment inside the body and thus inflict a severed and painful wound; - so named from Dumdum, in India, where bullets are manufactured for the Indian army.
Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary, published 1913 by C. & G. Merriam Co.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Dumdum+bullet


Frangible ammunition
Frangible projectiles are specifically designed to break apart into small dust like particles when hitting hard structures--typically steel targets, and generally fall into two categories: training ammunition and Reduced Ricochet, Limited Penetration (RRLP or R2LP) loads. It is important to note that although frangible ammunition ideally disintegrates against a hard steel target, that does NOT mean it will break apart against/within less dense materials, including soft tissue.

Various types of frangible training ammunition have been available since WWII.

http://dictionary.sensagent.com/frangible+bullet/en-en/
 
vtbub said:
Exactly how does that show a shot to the back of the head?
Click to expand...

The invisible brains jackie tried to scoop up?

Why cant we see any exit wound on the back of JFKs head in the Z film?
Why dont we see any discharge from such a large exit wound while being able to see the relatively small "jet" from the entry wound?
 
DumDums don't fragment into so many tiny pieces that the main portion of the bullet cannot be found. That eliminates your claim right there.

DumDums are designed to reduce penetration by letting the bullet deform and transfer most of the energy to the target, not going through the target. They expand, they flatten, they can break up quite a bit - but they do not reliably shatter into dozens of pieces. Any assassin depending on the extra bullet not being found because they used a dumdum would be an idiot.

Oh and:

Robert Prey said:
Various types of frangible training ammunition have been available since WWII.
Click to expand...

None listed in your ad-laden link. Why must you tell lies?
 
Robert Prey said:
Rich, your lack of scholarship is showing.There are all kinds of problems with linking LHO to the death of Tippit.
Click to expand...

None that you've cited. Perhaps you could provide some evidence for your assertion?

And why is there a large mass of ejecta from the right front of Kennedy's head we see in the Zapruder film?
 
Robert Prey said:
Originally Posted by Noztradamus
Robert, one fundemantal problem is that you don't understand terms like "jet recoil effect", "downrange", and "frangible bullet".

Educate yourself before trying to convince others of your mad ideas. You'll sound more plausible if you are seen as knowlegable. (You'll still be wrong, but it won't be so obvious)
Click to expand...

I've never even used the terms "jet recoil effect" nor "downrange". Pay attention.
Click to expand...

No you didn't, but as tomtom said
Tomtomkent said:
~~~
Your posts can be flawed by a failed understanding of those terms precisely because you have not used them, or shown you understand the reality of processes you describe.
Click to expand...

The term "Jet recoil effect" was used by Louis Alvarez to explain "back and to the left", and it what we (apart from you)are refering to. We (apart from you) may occasionally shorthand it to "jet effect", but it's what we (apart from you) are talking about, not your practice of pricking balloons in front of your face.

"Downrange" is the direction used by your source Craig Roberts (#1048) to specify the direction the ejecta from a head wound flies.
It went ahead of JFK, ergo shooter to the rear.
 
Noztradamus said:
No you didn't, but as tomtom said


The term "Jet recoil effect" was used by Louis Alvarez to explain "back and to the left", and it what we (apart from you)are refering to. We (apart from you) may occasionally shorthand it to "jet effect", but it's what we (apart from you) are talking about, not your practice of pricking balloons in front of your face.

"Downrange" is the direction used by your source Craig Roberts (#1048) to specify the direction the ejecta from a head wound flies.
It went ahead of JFK, ergo shooter to the rear.
Click to expand...

You are confused. What Craig Roberts was saying is that the downrange conical projection of a wound would prove a shot from the back, but that is exactly what he does not see in the Z film?

" In a head shot, the exit wound, due to the buildup of hydrostatic pressure, explodes in a conical formation in the down-range direction of the bullet. Yet in the Zapruder film, I could plainly see that the eruption was not a conical shape to the front of the limo, but instead was an explosion that cast fragments both up and down in a vertical plane, and side to side in a horizontal plane. There was only one explanation for this: an exploding or 'frangible' bullet. Such a round explodes on impact--in exactly the manner depicted in the film."
 
Last edited:
Robert Prey said:
More evidence of wound to the back of the head:
[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/526994ec3a25db5b70.jpg[/qimg]
Click to expand...

That looks like a car, not a head.

Robert Prey said:
Various types of frangible training ammunition have been available since WWII.
Click to expand...

Do you have a source for this? Because it's nowhere in the links you posted. In fact one of the sources for the links you posted goes back to the original link I posted saying the frangible bullet was invented in 1974.
 
But the explosion is still downrange.

Odd that. Even in bold font the paragraph RP quotes only argues about the shape ofdischarge to speculate on the type of round used. Nowhere does a downrange exit wound become an uprange entry wound.

Well it can't. The explosion is upon impact, and the exploded bullet would, as long as it obeys physics, carry on in the direction of travelling pushing trauma ahead of itself.

The explosion is downrange. That is an exit wound.
 
Last edited:
Robert, why are you ascribing actions to bullets that (if you have any experience with firearms outside of Hollywood's treatment of them) you know is not possible?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom