New Posts
  • Hi there guest! Welcome to PoliticalJack.com. Register for free to join our community?

JFK Assassination 50th Anniversary: What do you think happened?

ya-ta-hey

Mayor
I enjoyed my sleep very much. Thank you. I realize that it is impossible to make anyone believe anything that they don't want to believe. But anyone with common sense would doubt the lone gunman story. Take care.:)
Ms. Rose,

Anybody that thinks there was one more than one gunman also believes in space aliens took the head shot. ;)
 

Sunset Rose

Mayor
Supporting Member
Ms. Rose,

Anybody that thinks there was one more than one gunman also believes in space aliens took the head shot. ;)
For all I know you could be a space alien. I've heard aliens have higher intelligence than humans. Wait---you must not be a space alien then;)
 

trapdoor

Governor
Why should both behave the same. One hit mostly tissue and little bone. The other blasted through two sections of bone in Kennedy's skull. "Speaking of the head wound, the distribution of bullet fragments in Kennedy’s brain, as shown in the autopsy x-rays..."

Mythbusters did a pretty good evaluation of the shots. The magic bullet shot resulted in the bullet being a little bit more deformed than in the JFK assassination but it also hit a bone (glancing possibly) they put in the ballistic gel. For example the simulation discussed here discusses the magic bullet and it indicates that it is possible that the bullet hit no bones before the energy was spent. So, the Mythbusters shot resulting in little deformation of the bullet is feasible given the crime scene and the computer analysis. Seems that the two fragmentation issues are supported by the evidence.

The latest forensic analysis (e.g., computer models) that fits the evidence indicates three shots. The bullet in the head shot fragmented for sure and the one that hit Connelly didn't. I see no anomalous issues.
The bone in the human skull is hard, but not especially thick -- it's not a big impediment to a full-metal-jacket bullet. Such a bullet wouldn't normally explode - - and if it did it would do so on thicker bones, like the rib bones encountered by the so-called "magic" bullet.

The Myth-busters aren't exactly ballistic experts (they once launched a bowling ball out of a cannon and into someone's home outside the Alameda air base). I saw a really authoritative duplication done by a team out of Australia a few years ago, but it was mostly designed to prove that the "magic bullet" had caused all the wounds it is said to have caused. Unsurprisingly, they found it was fairly easy for that bullet to perform to Warren Commission standards. They didn't test the headshot, which is the "exploding" bullet used by the Warren Commission to explain all the extra bullet holes.
 

Hmmmm

Mayor
The bone in the human skull is hard, but not especially thick -- it's not a big impediment to a full-metal-jacket bullet. ...
I think you are speculating as much as me. I have fired enough rounds to not be nearly as certain as you. I also believe the ballistic experts that have examined the evidence and believe that there were only 3 shots. One missed, one hit Kennedy and the Connelly, and one hit Kennedy in his head and fragmented. I believe that the evidence doesn't support anything different. I think that the most plausible explanation is that one bullet fragmented while the other did not.
 

trapdoor

Governor
I think you are speculating as much as me. I have fired enough rounds to not be nearly as certain as you. I also believe the ballistic experts that have examined the evidence and believe that there were only 3 shots. One missed, one hit Kennedy and the Connelly, and one hit Kennedy in his head and fragmented. I believe that the evidence doesn't support anything different. I think that the most plausible explanation is that one bullet fragmented while the other did not.

I'm sorry, but that doesn't account for all the damage done. What caused the injury to the person under the overpass? The wound that was covered up by the tracheotomy? Those holes/fragments are pretty much too big to becaused by pieces of a bullet that only weighed 162 grains to begin with.
 

Sunset Rose

Mayor
Supporting Member
I'm sorry, but that doesn't account for all the damage done. What caused the injury to the person under the overpass? The wound that was covered up by the tracheotomy? Those holes/fragments are pretty much too big to becaused by pieces of a bullet that only weighed 162 grains to begin with.
Thank you. That's exactly what I was thinking.
 

trapdoor

Governor
So there was a second shooter on the grassy knoll...

Now what?
I think there was a second shooter. Where that second shooter was located? Your guess is as good as mine -- but I think the grassy knoll is unlikely. It was too close to the crowd, too many potential witnesses. Maybe the Dal-Tex building?
 

fairsheet

Senator
Two things drive the conspiracy theorists. One is that it's really difficult (for any of us) to accept that one lone loon could change the world to the extent Oswald did. That's a feelings/emotion thing.

The other's more of a logic/perception thing. They assume that the gunshot death of JFK on that day, was preordained or some sort of foregone conclusion. Therefore, there's no way it could have happened exactly as it did, without some sort of elaborate planning and a conspiracy involving more than that one lone loon.

They're not seeing the alternative....that it was all a random set of happenstances adn dare I say....."luck" on Oswald's part.
 

Hmmmm

Mayor
I'm sorry, but that doesn't account for all the damage done. ...
That is your opinion (and that of some others). Many experts with more knowledge than either of us believe 3 bullets, one gun, and one shooter. I choose to believe them.
 

trapdoor

Governor
That is your opinion (and that of some others). Many experts with more knowledge than either of us believe 3 bullets, one gun, and one shooter. I choose to believe them.
When it comes to firearms, and I mean to not sound egotistical saying this, there are few people who have a LOT more knowledge than I have. There are some that have a bit more specialized knowledge, especially when it comes to internal ballistics (the stuff that goes on inside the cartridge after the primer ignites). I can state with a high level of certainty that when it comes to full-metal jacket 6.5 millimeter bullets traveling at the speeds involved in Dallas that day, they explode so rarely that the number that do explode would be statistically insignificant. And that leaves us with too few bullets to account for the number of bullet holes -- probably the most questionable finding of the Warren Commission.
 

trapdoor

Governor
Okay. Let's assume that there was a second shooter in the Dal-Tex building.

Now... What is different about the outcome?
About the outcome? Nothing, really. Dead is dead. It leaves us still wondering who did the shooting and why, though. Did Oswald have an accomplice? Was Oswald part of a larger conspiracy? I don't know the answers to those questions -- I merely know what firearms do and how firearms projectiles act, and I think the Warren Commission findings in that area are so unlikely as to be dismissed.
 

NightSwimmer

Senator
About the outcome? Nothing, really. Dead is dead. It leaves us still wondering who did the shooting and why, though. Did Oswald have an accomplice? Was Oswald part of a larger conspiracy? I don't know the answers to those questions -- I merely know what firearms do and how firearms projectiles act, and I think the Warren Commission findings in that area are so unlikely as to be dismissed.

So then, dismiss them. I still see no need to fill the vacuum of knowledge about what happened with imaginary conspiracy theories.
 

Ben Arnold

Council Member
With the 50th anniversary coming up of this event, I'm pushing some discussion..
I have plenty to discuss and contribute (I don't have tons of time at the moment) but for starters, I'm curious as to what you think... who did it, and why?
Oswald. No clue since he was shot by Ruby, who was a smidge nutty, but we can assume Oswald was way out there, but who knows where there was. Everything is speculative.

But it's fodder for conspiracy nuts, and will be for another 50 years of wild theories based on circumstantial cherry picking and distortions of all kinds, not one of which will ever sleuth a mystery that simply ain't a mystery.

More objective people have reviewed the many and finite minutia, which always comes up Oswald.

But don't let it get in the way of your getting stiffies making stuff up. Go hog wild.
 

Mr. Friscus

Governor
Oswald. No clue since he was shot by Ruby, who was a smidge nutty, but we can assume Oswald was way out there, but who knows where there was. Everything is speculative.

But it's fodder for conspiracy nuts, and will be for another 50 years of wild theories based on circumstantial cherry picking and distortions of all kinds, not one of which will ever sleuth a mystery that simply ain't a mystery.

More objective people have reviewed the many and finite minutia, which always comes up Oswald.

But don't let it get in the way of your getting stiffies making stuff up. Go hog wild.
Negative.

To grasp onto the "single shooter Oswald Theory" that the Warren Commission subscribes to... it would be THAT person who is pretty wacko.
 

Ben Arnold

Council Member
Negative.

To grasp onto the "single shooter Oswald Theory" that the Warren Commission subscribes to... it would be THAT person who is pretty wacko.
Gotcha. Warren commission wrong. Conspiracy theory nuts know exactly what happened, and have perps under surveillance at this very minute, because the time is right to move in and make an arrest in the tradition of Adams and Jefferson, on a 50th year anniversary.

Makes perfect sense if using all the critical thinking one would expect of a grapefruit.
 

trapdoor

Governor
So then, dismiss them. I still see no need to fill the vacuum of knowledge about what happened with imaginary conspiracy theories.
Well, if the Warren Commission was wrong on the ballistics, as it was, that means something other than "lone mad gunman" was going on. I'm not certain what.
 

NightSwimmer

Senator
Well, if the Warren Commission was wrong on the ballistics, as it was, that means something other than "lone mad gunman" was going on. I'm not certain what.

Neither was the Warren Commission, I suspect.

I simply don't understand the refusal on the part of some folks to accept "I don't know" as an answer. Why do so many believe that there is a huge cabal of people who do know exactly what happened and are expending Herculean amounts of effort to keep this information away from the public?
 
Top