|
|
| Author |
Message |
sj2
|
|
JFK - Forty years on
| 
Nov 23 06:07 UTC 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. |
jaklumen
|
|
response 1 of 55:
|
Nov 23 11:15 UTC 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.
|
bru
|
|
response 2 of 55:
|
Nov 23 14:10 UTC 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.
|
fitz
|
|
response 3 of 55:
|
Nov 23 14:42 UTC 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.
|
sj2
|
|
response 4 of 55:
|
Nov 23 15:09 UTC 2003 |
Stone's movie has been thoroughly discredited.
An example's here:
http://www.jfk-online.com/jfk100sbt.html
|
other
|
|
response 5 of 55:
|
Nov 23 17:04 UTC 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.
|
gelinas
|
|
response 6 of 55:
|
Nov 23 17:39 UTC 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.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 7 of 55:
|
Nov 23 18:06 UTC 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.
|
clees
|
|
response 8 of 55:
|
Nov 23 19:59 UTC 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?
|
other
|
|
response 9 of 55:
|
Nov 23 20:37 UTC 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.
|
gelinas
|
|
response 10 of 55:
|
Nov 24 00:26 UTC 2003 |
(Rane, in the particular case under discussion, the killing shot is
believed to have been made from behind, not from in front.)
|
vidar
|
|
response 11 of 55:
|
Nov 24 02:27 UTC 2003 |
Myth Busters covered this one. Turned out to be a busted myth.
|
gelinas
|
|
response 12 of 55:
|
Nov 24 02:50 UTC 2003 |
Would you care to elaborate, vidar?
|
rcurl
|
|
response 13 of 55:
|
Nov 24 04:38 UTC 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.)
|
sj2
|
|
response 14 of 55:
|
Nov 24 05:35 UTC 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?
|
other
|
|
response 15 of 55:
|
Nov 24 06:08 UTC 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...
|
sj2
|
|
response 16 of 55:
|
Nov 24 08:18 UTC 2003 |
Yep, could be. Or maybe it was a lucky shot.
|
bru
|
|
response 17 of 55:
|
Nov 24 15:35 UTC 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.
|