Grex Agora47 Conference

Item 187: JFK - Forty years on

Entered by sj2 on Sun Nov 23 06:07:02 2003:

New research discredited Oliver Stone's arguement against the magic 
bullet theory. But the arguements still go back and forth. Did the 
military-industrial complex (if one exists) really trample on 
democracy that day or the russians got him or the cubans?? Or was it 
only the lone deranged killer? 

Or, are you just plain tired. Happened 40 years back, why bother?
55 responses total.

#1 of 55 by jaklumen on Sun Nov 23 11:15:32 2003:

It might be possible the Mafia might have had a hand in it.  Joe 
Kennedy had a lot of mob ties and they had helped get Jack into the 
White House.  But... I doubt they were happy that Bobby was working 
against them with his little committee, and JFK had given them his 
approval.

Witnesses who were at the Grassy Knoll mysteriously died by various 
means... insurance adjusters said the possibilities of their deaths 
happening were 13 million to 1, if I remember right.  This was on a 
film I had watched on Europeans who studied the Mafia, who studied the 
JFK assasination, who noticed this and a number of other discrepancies.

This is not the only thing-- by a long shot.


#2 of 55 by bru on Sun Nov 23 14:10:45 2003:

yes, there are a lot of coincidences associated with the assassination, but
I am confident that there was only one assassin.  He fired three rounds.
the first missed.
the second is the so called "magic Bullet".
The third was the head shot that killed him.

Now, if you want to argue who put him there, whether the mafia, the kremlin,
Castro, or the CIA, you can argue all you want because an association can be
found between ALL those agencies.


#3 of 55 by fitz on Sun Nov 23 14:42:13 2003:

A friend of Jim Garrison said in an interview that he didn't thinkk that
Oliver Stone would have made his movie if he had known that Garrison could
daily expound on a different consspiracy theory and it would be just as
convincing as the previous theory.


#4 of 55 by sj2 on Sun Nov 23 15:09:45 2003:

Stone's movie has been thoroughly discredited.
An example's here:
http://www.jfk-online.com/jfk100sbt.html


#5 of 55 by other on Sun Nov 23 17:04:58 2003:

I haven't seen the Stone movie but one that always bugged me about 
the single-shooter theory is that in the Zapruder film, the head 
shot throws Kennedy's head BACK, which is in no way explained by the 
physics of being shot from above and behind, but IS logical if shot 
from the front.


#6 of 55 by gelinas on Sun Nov 23 17:39:15 2003:

I ran across an explanation of that while channel-surfing Friday evening,
I think it was (could have been yesterday, though).

Someone ran some experiments with human skulls filed with white powder and
'anmial matter', IIRC, and then fired some bullets through them, filming
the results for analysis.  Apparently, the force of . . . stuff . . .
exiting along with the bullet is sufficient to drive the head backwards.


#7 of 55 by rcurl on Sun Nov 23 18:06:25 2003:

Assuming you are talking about a frontal shot - the force of
"stuff....exiting" would actually push the head forward (see under "jet
engine"). The force backwards comes from absorbing the momentum of the
bullet as it slows down.



#8 of 55 by clees on Sun Nov 23 19:59:43 2003:

As much as I suspect there were more than one gunman, the following.
I don't know much about ballistics but is the rocking effect on the 
head not induced by the impact? In other words: heavy caliber rifle, 
more impact?
And what about the distance? Doesn't that have an effect?


#9 of 55 by other on Sun Nov 23 20:37:45 2003:

Okay, I think I get it.

The bullet transfers (some portion of) its energy to the head, but 
the bulk of that is what expels the additional material.  The actual 
energy of impact is minimal by comparison to the ejection force, 
which directly propels the head in the direction opposite of the 
ejection.  The head would move significantly in the direction the 
bullet was travelling only if the energy of the bullet was retained 
within the head itself, as by something stopping or deflecting the 
bullet (which would cause movement, but in a direction determined by 
the degree of deflection of the bullet).

Interestingly, the visible effect of the initial impact would be 
lessened by the fact that the head was moving away from the source 
at the time of impact.

Well, the single-shooter theory just got a boost in my book.


#10 of 55 by gelinas on Mon Nov 24 00:26:20 2003:

(Rane, in the particular case under discussion, the killing shot is
believed to have been made from behind, not from in front.)


#11 of 55 by vidar on Mon Nov 24 02:27:13 2003:

Myth Busters covered this one.  Turned out to be a busted myth.


#12 of 55 by gelinas on Mon Nov 24 02:50:04 2003:

Would you care to elaborate, vidar?


#13 of 55 by rcurl on Mon Nov 24 04:38:22 2003:

(Re #10:...which is why I specified. However the experiments that were
being described, if they are the ones shown on TV, were conducted with
frontal impact. So, how were the experiments conducted? 

Re #9: it is momentum at issue here, not energy. Momentum is a vector,
so if the bullet enters in direction x and is deflected off in the
direction y at right angles, *all* of the x momentum is transferred to
the head. However when the bullet exits at right angles, it takes away
y momentum, so the head will react in the opposite direction. If the
bullet goes straight through, one can still look at it as the head
absorbing all of the x momentum on entry, but then receiving some 
remaining -x (reverse) momentum on leaving. Since the entering momentum
is greater than the leaving momentum, the head ends up being forced
in the +x direction.)


#14 of 55 by sj2 on Mon Nov 24 05:35:42 2003:

To me, the suspicious thing is how could Oswald fire those shots so 
quickly. His marine testing rated him as average. 

And what about several people who reportedly heard shots being fired 
from the other direction too?


#15 of 55 by other on Mon Nov 24 06:08:32 2003:

Echoes around the plaza are certainly a potential factor, and why 
should Oswald's Marine testing be the final determinant of his 
potential as a marksman.  He might have learned to do better 
subsequent to that testing.  Perhaps he was more motivated to 
practice for this test than the Marine one...


#16 of 55 by sj2 on Mon Nov 24 08:18:47 2003:

Yep, could be. Or maybe it was a lucky shot.


#17 of 55 by bru on Mon Nov 24 15:35:31 2003:

They showed his marine rating sheet on the programthe other day, adn he rated
sharpshooter.  He was getting groups on a handsbreadth at 200 yards.  The
dealy plaza shots were only 88 yards.  And three shots in 4 seconds is no
problem, even with a bolt action rifle.  if you have the training, it isn't
that difficult.

I can draw, aim and fire three shots from my pistol (2 to the chest, one to
the head) in 4 seconds at 20 yards.

Also, Keep in mind, he had a gun rest, the first round was already in the
chamber, so all he really had to do was fire 1 round every 2 seconds after
firing the first round.  Very easy.


#18 of 55 by johnnie on Mon Nov 24 15:43:03 2003:

Mmm, I believe he had more than eight seconds to fire off the last two 
shots.


#19 of 55 by other on Mon Nov 24 15:57:35 2003:

Paragraph two is so completely irrelevant as to make one wonder what purpose
it serves besides bragging (resp:17).

Also, keep in mind that Oswalds target was moving at what? 20+ mph? away from
him and across his field of fire at an angle, and he had to both reload and
reacquire his target each time before firing.  Suddenly it doesn't sound so
reasonable, huh?


#20 of 55 by gelinas on Mon Nov 24 16:00:01 2003:

The speed was more like 5 miles per hour, I think.  Weren't some of the agents
walking?


#21 of 55 by other on Mon Nov 24 16:03:12 2003:

I think it was a motorcade, but it's been a while since I've seen the footage,
so if I misremembered it, forgive me.  However, the point still stands, though
perhaps less extremely.


#22 of 55 by jep on Mon Nov 24 16:40:04 2003:

He was using a single shot rifle?


#23 of 55 by bru on Mon Nov 24 17:26:11 2003:

No, he was using a bolt action rifle, but it had 6 rd magazine.

The point of the second paragraph was that there is a lot of time to aim and
fire a gun in 4 seconds, and if you are trained in it's use, the shot was not
hard at all.

The first shot missed, probably because of nerves, then the training he had
kicked in adn the second two shots were easy.


#24 of 55 by willcome on Mon Nov 24 19:12:32 2003:

whore.


#25 of 55 by johnnie on Mon Nov 24 19:56:56 2003:

The motorcade was going about 10mph when Oswald first fired, and it was 
traveling more or less straight away from Oswald's elevated position, 
and Oswald was using a scope--a pretty easy shot.  Plus, once shots 
started ringing out, the driver of Kennedy's limo took his foot off the 
accelerator and turned around to see what was happening, coming to an 
almost dead stop just in time for the final fatal bullet.  

The first shot probably missed because Oswald was trying to fire through 
tree branches (one of which presumably deflected the bullet).


#26 of 55 by tpryan on Mon Nov 24 20:18:25 2003:

        Oswald could have been knowledgeable of a conspiracy, but I 
thing the way to handle Oswald was to make *him* think of the idea.
He seems like the personality that can swing quickly on an issue, so
any handler could leave with oppurtunity and his 'free will'; letting
him know how much of a 'hero' he can be, and have his place in 
history.
        I seem to recall that Oswald might have had something against
Gov. Connelly, but it didn't seem to be covered in the programs in 
the past week.
        Could a grassy knoll shotter have missed?  Waited for another
shotter to start?  Know of Oswald, without Oswald knowing of him?
You wouldn't want Oswald to know you arranged 'back-up'.  What about
the glass in the limo that was shot through?  Experts who repaired
the car said that a bullet entered front to back--not even allowing
Oswald's missed shot to go there.
        Why didn't the driver take advantage of the clear road ahead
of him on the first shot--he was trained.
        Who got Oswald the job at the SBD?  The route was known 
those six weeks ahead at the time someone found him the job.


#27 of 55 by aruba on Mon Nov 24 20:36:54 2003:

I happened to be in Dallas a few years ago with a weekend free, so I went to
the 6th floor of the Schoolbook Repository building, which is now a museum
devoted to the assassination.  It was very moving and well done, and I
recommend it for anyone interested.  I have a better sense of where
all the landmarks are, for having seen them in person.


#28 of 55 by johnnie on Mon Nov 24 20:49:11 2003:

Oswald got his job at the TBD via his landlord (Ruth Paine).  

Kennedy's Dallas destination (the Trademart) was picked about a week 
before the trip, the motorcade route was decided on a few days after 
that, and a detailed description of the route was published in the 
Dallas newspapers a couple of days beforehand.

If one is going to believe that The Conspiracy craftily arranged to have 
Oswald in the perfect position to shoot JFK, one would need to include 
Ruth Paine, the management at the TBD, members of the Kennedy 
administration, the Texas Democratic Party, the Secret Service, and the 
Dallas police among the plotters.  Hardly likely.


#29 of 55 by tsty on Mon Nov 24 22:27:54 2003:

the book by posner (gerald posner, i think) finely detialed the 
non-conspiracy, single-bullet reality.
  
until i read taht book, the 'single bullet' idea was, to me, wishful
dreaming.  
  
the implications of 'conspiracy' adn the inplications of 'nutty loner'
are so manifest with explosive adn corrosive reactions that, begrudgingly,
i became willing to 'buy' the warren commission report - as defective
as i believe it was/is - as a craven cooling=-off (smothering) for
americans in general.
  
expecially at that time, anything more involved than 'one lone nut' would
ahve been fodder for incendiary retaliation(s) the likes of which i, for
one, would not have wanted to witness.
  
so america took its lumps and moved on, painfully, and w/o much closure.
  
the posner book is recommended reading however. it will calm your nerves.
  
btw, where were you when .....?
  
i was in a military science adn tactics class studyign the 81mm mortar.


#30 of 55 by bru on Tue Nov 25 04:41:25 2003:

I was in 4th grade when it happened.

we were sent home early, the 6th graders were the only ones who knew what had
happended and many of them were crying.  They were told not to tell teh rest
of us.


#31 of 55 by happyboy on Tue Nov 25 05:45:26 2003:

"hey you little 4th grade pussies, guess what i just heard!"



8D


#32 of 55 by polygon on Tue Nov 25 08:14:55 2003:

I was in 3rd grade, in Red Cedar School in East Lansing.  Mrs. Claycomb's
class.  We were watching a music lesson on local public television (at the
time, Channel 10 was time-shared between educational WMSB and NBC
affiliate WILX).  The East Lansing school district presumably was able to
centralize elementary school music instruction by broadcasting it on cheap
local TV, but I didn't understand this at the time.  I thought Mrs. 
Acevedo (the music teacher) was a celebrity, practically as big a TV star
as Walter Cronkite. 

Anyway, Mrs. Acevedo was going through the "Do Re Mi Re Do" stuff (slowly,
with a piano) when the program was interrupted.  No visual, just a slide
saying "NBC NEWS" or similar.  The president had been shot.  Afterwards,
the music lesson came back on, and we continued.  I don't think we were
let out of school early.  I didn't find out that he had died until I got
home and found my mother crying. 

It wasn't until many years later (like the 1990s) that I found out that my
mother had a miscarriage around this same time, in late November 1963.


#33 of 55 by remmers on Tue Nov 25 11:36:49 2003:

I was in my first year of graduate school at the University of
Michigan, attending class (modern algebra) at the time of the
assassination.  Went back to my dorm room after class to study
and didn't learn of the shooting until an hour or so later
when I heard someone down the hall playing the radio loudly.
It sounded like a newscast reporting a violent incident of some
kind, but I couldn't catch all the details, so I turned on my
radio and soon learned what had happened.


#34 of 55 by fitz on Tue Nov 25 13:04:22 2003:

I was in drafting class:  we were dismissed early.  Can you believe that when
I arrived home, I turned on the radio and not the television? 'Tis hard to
imagine nowadays.


#35 of 55 by remmers on Tue Nov 25 15:07:21 2003:

(True - hard to imagine, although there are exceptions.  During last
summer's power blackout there was no choice, as the radio had batteries
but the TV didn't.)


#36 of 55 by sj2 on Tue Nov 25 15:25:28 2003:

The US spent a lot of money on defense in that era. And very big sums 
were involved. Why isn't it very likely that the so-called military-
industrial nexus might have led it? The end of the vietnam war would've 
cost the defense contractors several hundred billions of dollars. 


#37 of 55 by tsty on Tue Nov 25 17:58:50 2003:

where were you sj2?


#38 of 55 by jep on Wed Nov 26 15:43:55 2003:

I was only two when jfk was shot.  I do remember when his brother Bobby 
was killed a few years later.  When I got home from school, my mother 
was crying and greatly distressed.  She loved the Kennedys then.


#39 of 55 by willcome on Thu Nov 27 09:41:17 2003:

whore.


#40 of 55 by jor on Thu Nov 27 13:38:16 2003:

        we can imagine a single-bullet-theory that might
        directly involve willcome


#41 of 55 by other on Thu Nov 27 16:22:19 2003:

I'm thinking more like 125 bullets.  Why miss a good opportunity?


#42 of 55 by gelinas on Fri Nov 28 03:21:48 2003:

I remember someone sticking her head in the classroom door to announce
that the President had been shot.  My mother drove us home from school
(me, some neighbor kids, and probably my siblings, e'en though the younger
wasn't in school yet).  'Twas raining.  I watched a lot of television
with my parents over the next few days.


#43 of 55 by gull on Fri Nov 28 15:41:54 2003:

I'm too young to remember the Kennedy assassination.  The first major
news event I vividly remember is the Challenger explosion.


#44 of 55 by twenex on Fri Nov 28 16:08:48 2003:

Same here.


#45 of 55 by goose on Mon Dec 1 22:23:24 2003:

I was home with the flu on the day the Challenger exploded.  I watched it live
since I was a fan of the space program. 


#46 of 55 by tod on Mon Dec 1 23:14:32 2003:

This response has been erased.



#47 of 55 by bhoward on Tue Dec 2 03:41:20 2003:

The first major news event I remember vividly was the moon landing.
My dad was in grad school on North Campus and I remember him and
my mom waking me up to watch the TV.

I was in the dorm tv lounge (Mary Markley) when Challenger went down.


#48 of 55 by fitz on Tue Dec 2 12:19:03 2003:

I was listening to WKAR-FM, but I was lightly asleep.  I awoke, startled, to
the normal music broadcast, but I felt rattled enough to turn on the
television.

An interrupting announcement must have been enough to wake me, although I
didn't have any idea of having heard one.


#49 of 55 by gull on Tue Dec 2 15:11:42 2003:

My class at school was watching the liftoff live on TV.


#50 of 55 by jmsaul on Thu Dec 4 03:14:45 2003:

Re #47:  Strange.  So was I...


#51 of 55 by bhoward on Thu Dec 4 04:57:44 2003:

:-)


#52 of 55 by oval on Thu Dec 4 18:01:27 2003:

i was home sick also when the challenger exploded, but i was faking it.



#53 of 55 by jmsaul on Fri Dec 5 03:01:29 2003:

Re #51:  What was the name of that guy who had it on in his room on our
         hall?  He was part Latino or something.


#54 of 55 by bhoward on Sun Dec 7 03:14:28 2003:

Sadly, time has faded my memory of many of the names.


#55 of 55 by jmsaul on Sun Dec 7 15:55:16 2003:

Same here, apparently.


There are no more items selected.

You have several choices: