Comments by "James Bliehall" (@JBliehall) on "Who Was the Umbrella Man? | JFK Assassination Documentary | The New York Times" video.
-
13
-
12
-
9
-
5
-
4
-
4
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
Humdard, yes, it is simple but true.
We ALL sit and think about this and believe "It's too incredulous to be true!"
One guy took the life of the President with a 20 year-old Italian army rifle with a $4 telescopic sight? Yes.
And Timothy McVeigh alone (one supplier excluded) took down the Murrah Federal Building with 5,000 pounds of fertilizer and killed 168 people. That is inconceivable but also true.
11 terrorists killed >3,000 innocent people in NYC. True.
We want to attach "government involvement" to any heinous act of violence because - deep down - we want to believe it takes that kind of unbridled force to accomplish it, but it really doesn't.
MLK was killed by a lone, disgruntled gunman.
Mahatma Gandhi was killed by a lone disgruntled gunman.
Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin was killed by a lone disgruntled gunman.
The Pope was shot and almost killed by a lone, disgruntle gunman.
John Lennon was killed by a lone, disgruntled gunman.
President Reagan was almost killed by a lone, disgruntled gunman.
Every bit of evidence and testimony compiled by 5 commissions (not all government sponsored) points to LHO and his 6.5 mm MC rifle shooting JFK from the TSBD 6th floor.
It was accurate enough and he was just good enough to do it, with a fair amount of luck to accomplish it.
Any other explanation is conjecture and based on a lengthy series of "what ifs" that is mind-boggling.
But the doesn't stop the CT's.
3
-
3
-
3
-
TV, you believe William Greer, the driver and Secret Service Agent was so dumb he shot JFK in the motorcade in front of hundreds with cameras and not in the parking garage or hotel hallway? How do you rationalize that or do you just ignore simple logic?
So in front of the remainder of the Secret Service and Dallas Police Department security details, Jackie, the governor and his wife, the 2nd Secret Service Agent sitting next to him and hundreds of on-lookers with cameras, the driver discreetly pulled his hand gun, turned to an anatomical position a yoga instructor would applaud (the driver's left hand never left the steering wheel) shot JFK in the head, then just as discreetly re-holstered his gun and ........................drove on as if nothing ever happened?
Pretty great feat, especially as there was no reaction from anyone in the limo to what would have had to have been the severe muzzle blast of a handgun in a semi-enclosed environment and no reporting later of anything out of the ordinary regarding close-in gunfire by anyone in, behind or near JFK's limo.
And no handgun of the day and even few today, would have vaporized JFK's head the way Oswald's 6.5 mm rifle round did. No William Greer, the driver, didn’t shoot JFK . https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DguBcLpWBS0
Here's the digitized film showing how it was impossible
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
Joe, James Files is a moron....period.
He said he was a "trained sniper" and he took the telescopic sight off the XP_100 to “view the crowd” at 30 yards?? And he didn’t understand enough about weapons that you have to “re-zero” after you remove a scope from a weapon? Even locking scope mounts can be off.
The .222 Remington Fireball he said he used was a single shot, bolt fed weapon. For a sniper to use a single shot weapon would be unthinkable unless it was 1865.
To do what he stated in the video and put his teeth marks in the spent casing, being that the XP-100 is a bolt fed weapon, he either had to place his off-hand over the extraction port to catch the spent round as he ejected it or he had to look around on the ground to find it. REALLY?? He never ran the bolt and loaded another round to prepare for a follow-on shot?
And then he placed the spent round with all its pointing evidence (the firing pin hit impression, the firing chamber gas image on the spent round, his finger prints and ??teeth marks?? on the picket fence before he left only to have it NOT be found by the massive search of the plaza?
And this is from File's own confession:
"J – Tell me about these mercury loads. Can you describe them?"
JF – "Well, it was a 22 round and he took the tips off, he drilled them out and he inserted with an eye drop, he put mercury into the end of the round and he sealed them with wax. This is to make them explode on impact."
Now the the irrefutable laws of the REAL physical universe: Mercury has been used in movies and novels to make bullets more lethal. Day of the Jackal comes to mind. Generally it is poured into a hollow-point bullet and capped with wax or another medium. The results in fictional universe vary, but often times they become grenade-like explosive bullets.
This is idiotic and proves Files is a liar.
Pure mercury will instantly form an amalgam with lead on contact.
If you don’t believe me, or look it up on Google. This paste cannot be used as bullet material and unless it was inserted into the bullet immediately before firing, because the lead would soften to the point that the bullet would likely fly apart and leave the brass jacket in the barrel.
He is really appealing to those that know nothing about weapons platforms.
Files is a moron and anyone that believes him needs to get educated.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
RedCloud, it was a different world back then. Certainly JFK had no "Death Wish" as some claim, but heads of state took chances because they failed to comprehend that, irrespective of how much you believe you are liked, there are very evil people in the world. We ALL sit and think about this and believe "It's too incredulous to be true!" One guy took the life of the President with a 20 year-old Italian army rifle with a $4 telescopic sight? Yes.
And Timothy McVeigh alone (one supplier excluded) took down the Murrah Federal Building with 5,000 pounds of fertilizer and killed 168 people. That is inconceivable but also true.
11 terrorists killed >3,000 innocent people in NYC. True. We want to attach "government involvement" to any heinous act of violence because - deep down - we want to believe it takes that kind of unbridled force to accomplish it, but it really doesn't.
MLK was killed by a lone, disgruntled gunman.
Mahatma Gandhi was killed by a lone disgruntled gunman.
Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin was killed by a lone disgruntled gunman.
The Pope was shot and almost killed by a lone, disgruntle gunman.
John Lennon was killed by a lone, disgruntled gunman.
President Reagan was almost killed by a lone, disgruntled gunman.
Every bit of evidence and testimony compiled by 5 commissions (not all government sponsored) points to LHO and his 6.5 mm MC rifle shooting JFK from the TSBD 6th floor. It was accurate enough and he was just good enough to do it, with a fair amount of luck being added to accomplish it.
Any other explanation is conjecture and based on a lengthy series of "what ifs" that is mind-boggling. Jackie shot him. The Secret Service limo driver shot him. James Files shot him. Someone shot him from the storm drain. Someone shot him from the grassy knoll. There was a secret gun built into the front seat of the limo. A Secret Service Agent had a Negligent Discharge and shot him from the car behind the limo by accident.
I have yet to read about aliens being included but they aren't far off I am sure.
Stay safe.
2
-
2
-
2
-
@CK-mp9pq BTW he used a 20 year-old Italian 6.5 mm army rifle. The CT's keep stating it was "junk."
Not according to the FBI and US Army that tested his exact rifle. [Ronald Simmons, of the Army's Ballistics Research Laboratory, bench tested Oswald's MC rifle for the Warren Commission, and found the dispersion to be .29 mils — a figure typical for high-powered rifles — and described it as "quite accurate" (3H442-443). It is in his official report. (A mil is 3.6” at 100 yards and a MOA ["Minute Of Angle"] is about 1" at 100 yards)]
[Official FBI tests of Oswald's own MC. The three FBI experts each fired three shots from the weapon at 15 yards in 6, 7, and 9 seconds, and one of these agents, Robert A. Frazier, fired two series of three shots at 25 yards in 4.6 and 4.8 seconds. 808 At 15 yards each man's shots landed within the size of a dime. 809 The shots fired by Frazier at the range of 25 yards landed within an area of 2 inches and 5 inches respectively. 810 Frazier later fired four groups of three shots at a distance of 100 yards in 5.9, 6.2, 5.6, and 6.5 seconds. Each series of three shots landed within areas ranging in diameter from 3 to 5 inches. 811 Although all of the shots were a few inches high and to the right of the target, this was because of a defect in the scope which was recognized by the FBI agents and which they could have compensated for if they were aiming to hit a bull's-eye. 812 They were instead firing to determine how rapidly the weapon could be fired and the area within which three shots could be placed. Frazier testified that while he could not tell when the defect occurred, but that a person familiar with the weapon could compensate for it. 813 Moreover, the defect was one which would have assisted the assassin aiming at a target which was moving away. Frazier said, "The fact that the cross hairs are set high would actually compensate for any lead which had to be taken. So that if you aimed with this weapon as it actually was received at the laboratory, it would not be necessary to take any lead whatsoever in order to hit the intended object. The scope would accomplish the lead for you."]
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Once agin you are uninformed or are a liar. Which is it?
The HSCA NEVER said it was a conspiracy. They stated "evidence could not rule out the PROBABILITY of a conspiracy." Entirely different from what you purport.
The HSCA's conclusion was primarily based on acoustical data that was later proved to be invalid. Based on the evidence (even more than the Warren Commission had), the HSCA was heading toward the same conclusion reached by the Warren Commission, that Oswald was the sole assassin.
Then, at the 11th hour, the Dictabelt/acoustic evidence muddied the waters when the scientists concluded that there was a high probability that there were four shots, one of which originated from the area of the grassy knoll.
Based on that information, and running out of time and funding, the HSCA concluded that there was a "probable conspiracy". They never said there WAS a conspiracy.
They forwarded the case to the Justice Department.
Let's see if you agree with other conclusions reached by the HSCA. In addition to the fourth shot that originated from the grassy knoll, they also concluded the following:
1) the backyard photos were unaltered.
2) the autopsy photos and x-rays were unaltered and were unquestionably that of John Kennedy.
3) Kennedy was only hit from behind.
4) The shot from the area of the grassy knoll must have been a complete miss. It didn't even hit the limousine.
5) Oswald fired his Mannlicher-Carcano from the 6th floor of the Texas School Book Depository.
6) Oswald fired three times and got two hits.
7) The Single Bullet Theory is correct.
8) They did not know who was behind the "probable conspiracy" but they eliminated the following organizations from consideration: mafia, FBI, CIA, Secret Service, anti-Castro Cubans, Cuban government and the Soviet government.
Of course, it was later discovered that the acoustic evidence was totally invalid, eliminating the already-flimsy case for any "probable conspiracy".
Today, only those conspiracy theorists who must have been living under a rock still make the argument for a shot from the grassy knoll based on the acoustic evidence.
The HSCA report was reviewed ten years later and in a 1988 Justice Department memo to the House Judiciary Committee, the Assistant Attorney General formally reviewed the recommendations of the HSCA report and reported a conclusion of active investigations. investigative reports from the FBI’s Technical Services Division and the National Academy of Science Committee determined that "reliable acoustic data do not support a conclusion that there was a second gunman", the Justice Department also concluded “that no persuasive evidence can be identified to support the theory of a conspiracy in the assassination of President Kennedy”
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
John, The HSCA, concluded that the recording originated from the motorcycle of police officer H. B. McLain, who later testified before the committee that his microphone was often stuck in the open position. However, McLain did not hear the actual recording until after his testimony, and upon hearing it he adamantly denied that the recording originated from his motorcycle. He said that the other sounds on the recording did not match his movements. Sirens are not heard on the recording until more than two minutes after what is supposed to be the sound of the shooting; however, McLain accompanied the motorcade to Parkland Hospital immediately after the shooting, with sirens blaring the entire time. When the sirens are heard on the Dictabelt recording, they rise and recede in pitch (the Doppler effect) and volume, as if passing by. McLain also said that the engine sound was clearly from a three-wheeled motorcycle, not the two-wheeler that he drove: "There's no comparison to the two sounds."[11]
The adult magazine Gallery published a pull-out laminated cardboard recording( like those on the back of Cereal boxes) of the Dictabelt recording in its July 1979 issue.[23] An assassination researcher named Steve Barber listened to that recording repeatedly and heard the words "Hold everything secure until the homicide and other investigators can get there" at the point where the HSCA had concluded the assassination shots were recorded.[3] However, those words were spoken by Sheriff Bill Decker about 90 seconds after the assassination, so the shots could not be when the HSCA claimed.[24]
In 2003, an independent researcher named Michael O'Dell reported that both the National Academy and Dr. Thomas had used incorrect timelines because they assumed the Dictabelt ran continuously. When corrected, these showed the impulses happened too late to be the real shots even with Thomas's alternative synchronization. In addition, he pointed out that the 95% or higher probability of a shot from the grassy knoll referred only to random noise (which all earlier research acknowledges), while the impulse could have been something else, he identifies it as speech, ignoring that the analysis that the impulse is from a shot is based on timing of echos.[37]
A November 2003 analysis paid for by the cable television channel Court TV concluded that the putative gunshot impulses did not match test gunshot recordings fired in Dealey Plaza any better than random noise.[38] In December 2003, Thomas responded by pointing out what he claimed were errors in the November 2003 Court TV analysis.[39]
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@joeparker282 Agent Kellerman's testimony:
Mr. SPECTER. Did you have any occasion to examine closely the windshield after the time of the shooting up until the time you saw it in the White House garage?
Mr. KELLERMAN. No, sir.
Mr. SPECTER. Now, at the time of your examination of the windshield in the White House garage, did you feel the windshield?
Mr. KELLERMAN. On the day that I visited the White House garage and checked this car over for my own personal reasons, and this windshield crack was pointed out to me, I did--
Mr. SPECTER. When you say it was pointed out to you, by whom?
Mr. KELLERMAN. There were other people in the garage, Mr. Specter, like Mr. Kinney, I believe was there at the time, Special Agent Henry Rybka was the other person.
Mr. SPECTER. Was it sufficiently prominent without having to have it pointed out specially?
Mr. KELLERMAN. Oh, yes; very much. And I felt this windshield both inwardly and outwardly to determine first if there was something that was struck from the back of us or--and I was satisfied that it was.
Mr. SPECTER. When you say struck from in back of you, do you mean on the inside or outside of the windshield?
Mr. KELLERMAN. Inside, sir.
Mr. SPECTER. Inside of the car?
Mr. KELLERMAN. Right.
Mr. SPECTER. Did you have occasion to feel the outside of the windshield?
Mr. KELLERMAN. I did on that day; yes, sir.
Mr. SPECTER. What did you feel, if anything?
Mr. KELLERMAN. Not a thing; it was real smooth.
Mr. SPECTER. Did you have occasion to feel the inside of the windshield?
Mr. KELLERMAN. I did.
Mr. SPECTER. How did that feel to you?
Mr. KELLERMAN. My comparison was that the broken glass, broken windshield, there was enough little roughness in there from the cracks and split that I was positive, or it was my belief, that whatever hit it came into the inside of the car.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@mtracy9 That treatise I cannot find on Wikipedia. Here's the comment he made taken from today's Wikipedia website:
[Brugioni thought the Zapruder Film in the National Archives today, and available to the public, has been altered...] He THOUGHT but did not definitively state it WAS altered.
The notion that the Zapruder film has been altered is ridiculous on so many different levels.
How could they have known that there were not other films made that would reveal the alteration in the Zapruder film? And in fact there was. The Nix film completely agrees with the Zapruder film.
CBS contracted ITEK corporation, a photographic laboratory which had the capability to do detailed forensic analysis of photographs and films, analyze the Zapruder film. ITEK determined that the film was unaltered.
The CT's keep stating "the Zapruder film was altered." But not one can reference a scientific paper or website that details HOW an 8 mm Kodachrome movie film can be "doctored. A developed Kodachrome 8 mm color movie film has data points microns in size. You cannot "alter" them it is an analog medium, not digital. Once the silver hallide layer is developed the image points are microns in size. How do you alter that medium?
The technology to alter film so seamlessly, such that it could fool experts, does not exist today and certainly did not exist in 1963.
Yes, today you can generate a digital copy alter that file and make a new film, but even that would be recognizable.
It can't be done today let alone in 1963.
The Eastman-KODAK engineers also analyzed the original Zapruder film, not a copy. They also stated it was not "altered."
Here’s the entire report from the Kodak engineers, they also stated the film was not altered. http://www.democratandchronicle.com/story/news/local/2013/11/21/kodak-researchers-helped-analyze-jfk-assassination-evidence/3667753/
Read Richard Trask's book, "National Nightmare.......".
[Immediately after the assassination Abe Zapruder carried the film in the camera back to his office and locked it in the safe.
He ran into Harry McCormick (Dallas Morning News) and told him he wanted to give the film to the F.B.I. or Secret Service.
McCormick looked for Forrest Sorrels to get the film processed. Abe went on camera for the TV networks to describe exactly what he filmed, including what turned out to be Z-313+ images when JFK's head was vaporized by the 6.5mm MC rifle round fired by Oswald.
Sorrels escorted Abe and his business partner to Kodak Labs to have the film processed.
Three additional copies were made at Jamieson Labs that evening, two of which were given to the Secret Service the evening of 11/22/63.
Richard Stolley negotiated purchase of print rights for Life Magazine the morning of 11/23/63 and sent the original film to Chicago where they were printed in their 11/29/63 edition.
Even IF the C.I.A. or anyone with these two first day copies of the original film "altered" them, no one and no government agency had the original Zapruder film, so the exercise would have been pointless.
The original film was in the possession of Time beginning the morning of 11/23/63 until it was returned to the Zapruder family in 1975.
The two Jamieson Labs first day copies of the film used to make briefing boards in the early morning of 11/23 and then on 11/24 were returned to the Secret Service in Dallas, the 2nd film viewed by McMahon on 11/26 along with a 2nd generation copy.
So all copies of the film show exactly the same events. No difference, no alterations. ]
So we have multiple sophisticated, professional and verifiable references stating the film was never "altered" but you "hang your hat" on one guy that "thought" the film was "altered".
And maybe you'll be the first CT to explain HOW the film was "altered."
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Yogi-Megan "BULLETS DON'T DO U TURNS N THE FRONT WINDSCREEN HOLE"
No they don't. And there never was a "hole" in the windshield, only a crack.
Mr. SPECTER. Did you have any occasion to examine closely the windshield after the time of the shooting up until the time you saw it in the White House garage?
Mr. KELLERMAN. No, sir.
Mr. SPECTER. Now, at the time of your examination of the windshield in the White House garage, did you feel the windshield?
Mr. KELLERMAN. On the day that I visited the White House garage and checked this car over for my own personal reasons, and this windshield crack was pointed out to me, I did-- Mr. SPECTER. When you say it was pointed out to you, by whom?
Mr. KELLERMAN. There were other people in the garage, Mr. Specter, like Mr. Kinney, I believe was there at the time, Special Agent Henry Rybka was the other person.
Mr. SPECTER. Was it sufficiently prominent without having to have it pointed out specially?
Mr. KELLERMAN. Oh, yes; very much. And I felt this windshield both inwardly and outwardly to determine first if there was something that was struck from the back of us or--and I was satisfied that it was.
Mr. SPECTER. When you say struck from in back of you, do you mean on the inside or outside of the windshield?
Mr. KELLERMAN. Inside, sir.
Mr. SPECTER. Inside of the car?
Mr. KELLERMAN. Right.
Mr. SPECTER. Did you have occasion to feel the outside of the windshield?
Mr. KELLERMAN. I did on that day; yes, sir.
Mr. SPECTER. What did you feel, if anything?
Mr. KELLERMAN. Not a thing; it was real smooth.
Mr. SPECTER. Did you have occasion to feel the inside of the windshield?
Mr. KELLERMAN. I did.
Mr. SPECTER. How did that feel to you?
Mr. KELLERMAN. My comparison was that the broken glass, broken windshield, there was enough little roughness in there from the cracks and split that I was positive, or it was my belief, that whatever hit it came into the inside of the car.
Oh, I forgot once again. ALL these people lied and committed perjury with a possible prison term in the balance.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Crystal, As they said, "They were trying to save the President's life." They also were not pathologists with experience in examining gunshot would for other than to ascertain the best course of action to keep someone from dying.
Based on their testimony below, here's a summary of the Parkland doctors and their opinions regarding the throat wound
Dr. Carrico - could be either an entry or exit wound
Dr. Perry - could be either an entry or exit wound
Dr. McClelland - never saw the wound prior to the tracheotomy
Dr. Baxter - could be either an entry or exit wound
Dr. Jenkins - thought it was an exit wound
Dr. Jones - thought it was an entry wound
Dr. Akin - could be either an entry or exit wound
Dr. Peters - never saw the wound prior to the tracheotomy
Dr. Curtis - never saw the wound prior to the tracheotomy
Dr. Bashour - never saw the wound prior to the tracheotomy
Dr. Giesecke - never saw the wound prior to the tracheotomy
Dr. Hunt - did not see the wound
Dr. Salyer - didn't see the nature of the wound
Dr. White - did not see the wound
Dr. Dulany - never saw the wound prior to the tracheotomy
And here's the actual testimony of the Parkland doctors.
Mr. SPECTER - Was the wound in the neck consistent with being either an entry or exit wound, in your opinion?
Dr. CARRICO - No; it could have been either, depending on the size of the missile, the velocity of the missile, the tissues that it struck.
Dr. PERRY - .................... and I could not categorically state about the nature of the neck wound, whether it was an entrance or an exit wound, not having examined the President further--I could not comment on any other injuries. -----------------
Mr. SPECTER - And would the hole that you observed on the President's throat then be consistent with such an exit wound?
Dr. PERRY - It would. There is no way to determine from my examination as to exactly how accurately I could depict an entrance wound from an exit wound, without ascertaining the entire trajectory.
Mr. SPECTER - But did you, in fact, see the wound prior to the time the incision was made?
Dr. McCLELLAND - No.
Mr. Specter - Were the characteristics of the wound on the neck sufficient to enable you to form an opinion with reasonable medical certainty as to what was the cause of the hole?
Dr. Baxter - Well, the wound was, I think, compatible with a gunshot wound. It did not appear to be a jagged wound such as one would expect with a very high velocity rifle bullet. We could not determine, or did not determine at that time whether this represented an entry or an exit wound. Judging from the caliber of the rifle that we later found or become acquainted with, this would more resemble a wound of entry. However, due to the density of the tissues of the neck and depending upon what a bullet of such caliber would pass through, the tissues that it would pass through on the way to the neck, I think that the wound could well represent either exit or entry wound.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@ronniebishop2496 Oswald never went "back and forth" between Russia and the US. Another idiotic fairy tale. You obviously do ZERO research and keep parroting dumb conspiracy factoids.
[Oswald wrote in his diary in January 1961: "I am starting to reconsider my desire about staying. The work is drab, the money I get has nowhere to be spent. No nightclubs or bowling alleys, no places of recreation except the trade union dances. I have had enough."[82] Shortly afterwards, Oswald (who had never formally renounced his U.S. citizenship) wrote to the Embassy of the United States, Moscow requesting the return of his American passport, and proposing to return to the U.S. if any charges against him would be dropped.[83]
In March 1961, Oswald met Marina Prusakova (b. 1941), a 19-year-old pharmacology student; they married six weeks later.[n 4][84] The Oswalds' first child, June, was born on February 15, 1962. On May 24, 1962, Oswald and Marina applied at the U.S. Embassy in Moscow for documents that enabled her to immigrate to the U.S. On June 1, the U.S. Embassy gave Oswald a repatriation loan of $435.71.[85] Oswald, Marina, and their infant daughter left for the United States, where they received less attention from the press than Oswald expected.[86]
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@KevinR242 I am looking at your posts right now ands see no "book marks." More importantly, not one CT can reference a scientific paper or website that details HOW an 8 mm Kodachrome movie film can be "altered" including removing frames and not have it be recognized by reputable engineering groups. The Zapruder camera ran at 18.3 frames per second so any removal of even a single frame would have immediately been noticeable, even to the uneducated viewer.
And film is an analog medium, not digital. Once the silver hallide layer is developed the image points are microns in size. How do you alter that medium?
The technology to alter film so seamlessly, such that it could fool experts, does not exist today and certainly did not exist in 1963.
Yes, today you can generate a digital copy, alter that file and make a new film, but even that would be recognizable.
It can't be done today let alone in 1963.
CBS contracted the ITEK corporation, a photographic laboratory which had the capability to do detailed forensic analysis of photographs and films, analyze the Zapruder film. ITEK determined that the film was unaltered.
KODAK engineers also diod extensive studies and determined the film was not altered. http://www.democratandchronicle.com/story/news/local/2013/11/21/kodak-researchers-helped-analyze-jfk-assassination-evidence/3667753/
What reference do you have that it was?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@williambrannen7494 The points you make are not (at least as far as I can research) verifiable.
The sight on LHO's 6.5 mm MC rifle was not 'broken." The FBI AND the US Army tested LHO's own rifle.
Ronald Simmons, of the Army's Ballistics Research Laboratory, bench tested Oswald's MC rifle for the Warren Commission, and found the dispersion to be .29 mils — a figure typical for high-powered rifles — and described it as "quite accurate" (3H442-443). It is in his official report. (A mil is 3.6” at 100 yards and a MOA ["Minute Of Angle"] is about 1" at 100 yards)
Here’s the sworn testimony of the FBI on tests of LHO’s own MC.
FBI firearms expert Robert A. Frazier testified that "It is a very accurate weapon. The targets we fired show that."[61] From 15 yards (14 m), all three bullets in a test firing landed approximately 2½ inches high, and 1-inch (25 mm) to the right, in the area about the size of a dime.[62] At 100 yards (91 m), the test shots landed 2½ to 5 inches (130 mm) high, within a 3 to 5-inch (130 mm) circle. Frazier testified that the scope's high variation would actually work in the shooter's favor: with a target moving away from the shooter, no lead correction would have been necessary to follow the target. "At that range, at that distance, 175 feet (53 m) to 265 feet (81 m),[63] with this rifle and that telescopic sight, I would not have allowed any lead — I would not have made any correction for lead merely to hit a target of that size." 2) The rifle couldn't be perfectly sighted in using the scope (i.e., thereby eliminating the above overshoot completely) without installing two metal shims (small metal plates), which were not present when the rifle arrived for testing, and were never found.[64] Frazier testified that there was "a rather severe scrape" on the scope tube, and that the sight could have been bent or damaged. He was unable to determine when the defect occurred before the FBI received the rifle and scope on November 27, 1963.
Are you telling me the FBI and the US Army joined into the conspiracy?
The rifle was at first categorized as a "Mauser" by people that didn't know the difference. It was photographed and filmed and is clearly a MC.
EDDIE BARKER (CBS NEWS) -- "What kind of gun did you think it was?"
WEITZMAN -- "To my sorrow, I looked at it and it looked like a Mauser, which I said it was. But I said the wrong one; because just at a glance, I saw the Mauser action....and, I don't know, it just came out as words it was a German Mauser. Which it wasn't. It's an Italian type gun. But from a glance, it's hard to describe; and that's all I saw, was at a glance. I was mistaken. And it was proven that my statement was a mistake; but it was an honest mistake."
The conspiracy theorists site those who discovered it as claiming it was a Mauser. Mostly, they site Seymour Weitzman, Eugene Boone, Will Fritz and Carl Day. There are more testimonies of these others that first thought is was a Mauser and later realized they really didn't know much about foreign rifles.
Why in heavens name would people have "ear plugs" if they were aware of the assassination team? That would be a dead give away to ANY observant person. It is too illogical. Where did you read that? And where is there any photograph showing people with ear plug?
I was in the military from 1960-65 and even we didn't ear plugs issued.
I'd go on (a "Frenchman???") but your "theory" is way too complicated and convoluted to be remotely realistic.
You read conspiracy websites and believe what they have to say is true-simply because they state it (and can't prove it.).
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@hurricanemaude795 You have what the psychologists term "Confirmation Bias"
[The tendency to search for, interpret, favor, and recall information that confirms or supports one's prior personal beliefs or values. It is an important type of cognitive bias that has a significant effect on the proper functioning of society by distorting evidence-based decision-making.
People display this bias when they gather or remember information selectively, or when they interpret it in a biased way.
For example, a person may cherry-pick empirical data that supports one's belief, ignoring the overwhelming remainder of the data that is not supportive.]
When presented with an inexhaustible amount of real data, scientific evidence and testimony from dozens of learned people, it still does not deter some people from believing what they believe.
They first and foremost WANT to believe some premise, so no matter what is presented to counter it, they continue to believe it. You see what you want in the "JFK to 911" video even when it requires setting aside common-sense.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@TheDicebergz You did no research on the cranial movements of JFK's head upon impact of the 6.5 mm rifle round, that's obvious. Here's just 2 of the REAL scientific evaluations of that moment. The uneducated CT's keep chanting the mantra......."Back and to the Left"............ “Back and to the Left.”
JFK’s head was first propelled forward by LHO's rifle round that entered the back of his head.
He THEN went back and to the left.
It is the consensus of medical experts the "back and to the left" was caused by a neuro-muscular reaction when his brain was destroyed.
Here is a digitized video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o0d6LG27hQM
From the NIH:
[https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5934694/
However, while it is not immediately noticeable at this scale (and not detectable while viewed in motion at normal speed), a careful comparison between the two frames also reveals that President Kennedy's head snaps forward from Z312 to Z313 [9, pp. 87–89], as referenced to the red dashed line labeled O. There is nothing new in this observation—early researchers with access to the still frames first noticed this in the mid-to-late 1960s. Notable among these is author Josiah Thompson, who estimated the position of the President's head relative to two fixed objects on the rear of the limousine, the results of which are plotted in his book Six Seconds in Dallas (1967) [9, p. 91] that will be returned to in Section 2.2. However, for the moment it should be noted that this motion amounts to an anomalous forward impulse on the order of several centimeters over the time interval of one Zapruder frame (≈0.055 s) at the moment of impact (an impulse comparable to Connally's “lapel flap”). It is also crucial to note that this anomalous forward impulse at Z313 is only observed on Kennedy's head—it is not observed on any of the other limo occupants (with reference to dotted lines c, d and f), nor is it even observed on Kennedy's own torso (line b), wherein lies his body's center-of-mass (CM). This implies that an isolated real force acted directly (and solely) upon the President's head just prior to Z313; the only plausible source for this instantaneous, isolated forcing mechanism is manifestly and unequivocally the projectile impact.]
Just stay uneducated, it's easier to believe the CT fairy tales. Psychiatrists have a term for it. It's called "confirmation bias."
[Confirmation bias is the tendency to search for, interpret, favor, and recall information that confirms or supports one's prior personal beliefs or values.[1] It is an important type of cognitive bias that has a significant effect on the proper functioning of society by distorting evidence-based decision-making. People display this bias when they gather or remember information selectively, or when they interpret it in a biased way. For example, a person may cherry-pick empirical data that supports one's belief, ignoring the remainder of the data that is not supportive.]
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The trial was a sham. Even the NYT (which is not a bastion of conservatism) stated as much.
[ However, the verdict was of no real significance given that virtually nothing was at stake (this was not a criminal trial, and the defendant was only being sued for a mere $100 and thus had little motivation for vigorously defending himself), allowing the King family to present a mostly unopposed version of events and guide the jury to return the verdict they desired. As noted in the New York Times‘ report of the verdict, the one-sided presentation of the case allowed for no other result:
John Campbell, an assistant district attorney in Memphis, who was not part of the civil proceedings but was part of the criminal case against Mr. Ray, said, “I’m not surprised by the verdict. This case overlooked so much contradictory evidence that never was presented, what other option did the jury have but to accept Mr. Pepper’s version?”
And Gerald Posner, whose recent book, “Killing the Dream” made the case that Mr. Ray was the killer, said, “It distresses me greatly that the legal system was used in such a callous and farcical manner in Memphis. If the King family wanted a rubber stamp of their own view of the facts, they got it.”]
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Pat, let's get the facts straight.
[Hunt sued Liberty Lobby – but not the Sunday News Journal – for libel. Liberty Lobby stipulated, in this first trial, that the question of Hunt's alleged involvement in the assassination would not be contested.[59] Hunt prevailed and was awarded $650,000 damages. In 1983, however, the case was overturned on appeal because of error in jury instructions.[60] In a second trial, held in 1985, Mark Lane made an issue of Hunt's location on the day of the Kennedy assassination.[61] Lane successfully defended Liberty Lobby by producing evidence suggesting that Hunt had been in Dallas. He used depositions from David Atlee Phillips, Richard Helms, G. Gordon Liddy, Stansfield Turner, and Marita Lorenz, plus a cross-examination of Hunt. On retrial, the jury rendered a verdict for Liberty Lobby.[62] Lane claimed he convinced the jury that Hunt was a JFK assassination conspirator, but some of the jurors who were interviewed by the media said they disregarded the conspiracy theory and judged the case (according to the judge's jury instructions) on whether the article was published with "reckless disregard for the truth."[63] Lane outlined his theory about Hunt's and the CIA's role in Kennedy's murder in a 1991 book, Plausible De.]
Even the jury stated they didn't make their distinction on the CIA being involved and only decided on the LIBEL suit.
It's a real stretch to tie the JFK assassination to a libel and defamation trial.
1
-
@patm6704 [Lane provided testimony to the Warren Commission in Washington, D.C. on March 4, 1964.[17] Lane testified that he had contacted witness Helen Markham sometime within the five days preceding his appearance before the Commission and that she had described Tippit's killer to him as "short, a little on the heavy side, and his hair was somewhat bushy".[18] He added, "I think it is fair to state that an accurate description of Oswald would be average height, quite slender with thin and receding hair."[18]
In addressing the assertion that Markham's description of Tippit's killer was not consistent with the appearance of Oswald, the Warren Commission stated that they had reviewed the telephone transcript in which she was alleged to have made it.[19][20] The Commission wrote: "A review of the complete transcript has satisfied the Commission that Mrs. Markham strongly reaffirmed her positive identification of Oswald and denied having described the killer as short, stocky and having bushy hair."[21] As a result of this, Lane was called to re-appear before the Warren Commission in July 1964. Chief Justice Earl Warren told him that the commission had "every reason to doubt the truthfulness" of some of Mr. Lane's testimony due to the appearance of him misrepresenting what Markham told him.[22]
[Lane questions, among other things, the Warren Commission conclusion that three shots were fired from the Texas School Book Depository and focuses on the witnesses who had recounted seeing or hearing shots coming from the grassy knoll in Dealey Plaza. Lane questions whether Oswald was guilty of the murder of policeman J.D. Tippit shortly after the Kennedy murder. Lane also states that none of the Warren Commission firearm experts were able to duplicate Oswald's shooting feat.[24]
Of course many duplicated what LHO did and some even bettered him all of them using a 6.5 mm MC rifle
We could go into his involvement with Jim Jones and the Jonestown tragedy, but I'll leave it at that.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Skullpimp Here's the Zapruder film that has been digitized and interpolation added for clarity. It unequivocally shows his head going forward first, then backwards. The blood, brain cloud goes mainly forward into the limo. Certainly with the energy of a 6.5 mm rifle round it went everywhere.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o0d6LG27hQM
Here is the evidence of the shot entering the back of JFK's head and propelling it violently forward.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5934694/
However, while it is not immediately noticeable at this scale (and not detectable while viewed in motion at normal speed), a careful comparison between the two frames also reveals that President Kennedy's head snaps forward from Z312 to Z313 [9, pp. 87–89], as referenced to the red dashed line labeled O. There is nothing new in this observation—early researchers with access to the still frames first noticed this in the mid-to-late 1960s. Notable among these is author Josiah Thompson, who estimated the position of the President's head relative to two fixed objects on the rear of the limousine, the results of which are plotted in his book Six Seconds in Dallas (1967) [9, p. 91] that will be returned to in Section 2.2. However, for the moment it should be noted that this motion amounts to an anomalous forward impulse on the order of several centimeters over the time interval of one Zapruder frame (≈0.055 s) at the moment of impact (an impulse comparable to Connally's “lapel flap”). It is also crucial to note that this anomalous forward impulse at Z313 is only observed on Kennedy's head—it is not observed on any of the other limo occupants (with reference to dotted lines c, d and f), nor is it even observed on Kennedy's own torso (line b), wherein lies his body's center-of-mass (CM).
This implies that an isolated real force acted directly (and solely) upon the President's head just prior to Z313; the only plausible source for this instantaneous, isolated forcing mechanism is manifestly and unequivocally the projectile impact.
If I understand you correctly you have access to a video clearly showing him being shot from the front. I'd like to see it.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
411 You keep referencing the HSCA original proclamation which was proven to be founded on erroneous data.
the HSCA concluded that there was a "probable conspiracy". They never said there WAS a conspiracy.
They forwarded the case to the Justice Department.
Let's see if you agree with other conclusions reached by the HSCA. In addition to the fourth shot that they said could have originated from the grassy knoll.
They also concluded the following:
1) the backyard photos were unaltered.
2) the autopsy photos and x-rays were unaltered and were unquestionably that of John Kennedy.
3) Kennedy was only hit from behind.
4) The shot from the area of the grassy knoll must have been a complete miss. It didn't even hit the limousine.
5) Oswald fired his Mannlicher-Carcano from the 6th floor of the Texas School Book Depository.
6) Oswald fired three times and got two hits.
7) The Single Bullet Theory is correct.
8) They did not know who was behind the "probable conspiracy" but they eliminated the following organizations from consideration: Mafia, FBI, CIA, Secret Service, anti-Castro Cubans, Cuban government and the Soviet government.
Of course, it was later discovered that the acoustic evidence they used was totally invalid, eliminating the already-flimsy case for any "probable conspiracy".
Today, only those conspiracy theorists who must have been living under a rock still make the argument for a shot from the grassy knoll based on the acoustic evidence.
The HSCA report was reviewed ten years later and was overruled based on new data and a new conclusion was formed, in a 1988 Justice Department memo to the House Judiciary Committee, the Assistant Attorney General formally reviewed the recommendations of the HSCA report and reported a conclusion of active investigations.
Investigative reports from the FBI’s Technical Services Division and the National Academy of Science Committee determined that "reliable acoustic data do not support a conclusion that there was a second gunman", the Justice Department also concluded “that no persuasive evidence can be identified to support the theory of a conspiracy in the assassination of President Kennedy”
It's like stating "the Earth is flat" when everyone thought it was.
It was then proven to be false but you keep going back and stating "The Earth is flat."
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@roderickshelton9176 The shot was duplicated by many shooters with less experience than LHO. Contrary to what you ignorantly believe, LHO was a very good shooter also.
[[LHO USMC From the official Marine Rifle Range files and the Warren Commissions findings: ""During his Marine Corps service in December 1956, Oswald scored a rating of Sharpshooter (twice achieving 48 and 49 out of 50 shots during rapid fire at a stationary target 200 yards [183 m] away using a standard issue M1 Garand semi-automatic rifle), although in May 1959, he qualified as a Marksman (a lower classification than that of sharpshooter). Military experts, after examining his records, characterized his firearms proficiency as "above average" and said he was, when compared to American civilian males of his age, "an excellent shot".[58] 1]]
You have what the psychologists term "Confirmation Bias"
[The tendency to search for, interpret, favor, and recall information that confirms or supports one's prior personal beliefs or values. It is an important type of cognitive bias that has a significant effect on the proper functioning of society by distorting evidence-based decision-making.
People display this bias when they gather or remember information selectively, or when they interpret it in a biased way.
For example, a person may cherry-pick empirical data that supports one's belief, ignoring the remainder of the data that is not supportive.]
When presented with an inexhaustible amount of real data, scientific evidence and testimony from dozens of people, it still does not deter uneducated people like you from believing a fairy tale. You CT's first and foremost WANT to believe some idiotic theory, so no matter what is presented to counter it, you continue to believe it.
Don't do any REAL research so you can remain uneducated and eternally clueless and happy.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@ENDTIMEsVideoLibrary So typical of the uneducated conspiracy crowd. "I saw it but I don't have to tell you where."
Mainly that excuse is used because it is untrue.
No internet search connects you to a "clandestine Zapruder film that is unaltered.'
When the CT's are pressed to product REAL evidence they always leave and go to find other CT's that believe the same fairy tale.
The CT's refuse to look at baseline facts and in doing so aren’t required to face up to the conclusion that they are simply wrong. They have what the psychologists term "Confirmation Bias"
[The tendency to search for, interpret, favor, and recall information that confirms or supports one's prior personal beliefs or values. It is an important type of cognitive bias that has a significant effect on the proper functioning of society by distorting evidence-based decision-making.
People display this bias when they gather or remember information selectively, or when they interpret it in a biased way.
For example, a person may cherry-pick empirical data that supports one's belief, ignoring the overwhelming remainder of the data that is not supportive.]
When presented with an inexhaustible amount of real data, scientific evidence and testimony from dozens of learned people, it still does not deter some people from believing what they believe.
You first and foremost WANT to believe some premise, so no matter what is presented to counter it, you can and do continue to believe it.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@_insertusername_2464 My only point is too many uneducated zealots DO believe in moronic conspiracy theories. Some believe Jackie shot him, some believe the SS driver shot him, some believe Gov Connally shot him (all have no explanation as to why they would shoot him in the motorcade in front of hundreds of eyewitnesses with cameras and not in the parking garage) some believe the CIA did it, some the Vatican, some the Russians, some the Cubans....the list is longer than this page.
And too many, I am afraid to say including you, keep referencing unsearchable references.
"I read it in a book", or "I saw it on a website" seem, too often, to take the place of simple common sense and deductive reasoning.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Robert, I have trained just about every entity that carries a weapon, from the Army Rangers, Air Force Para-Rescue Jumpers, FBI, Secret Service, 82nd Airborne, LE SWAT Teams, civilians and more.
It is incomprehensible to believe Agent Hickey shot JFK.
He would have had to have had the Mother of All ND's (Negligent Discharge). He would have been negligent in defying known and well-practiced and mentally inbred safety drills that start the day as an Agent you pick up a weapon in training and it continues through the years of qualifications and practice. Over and over and over.
EVERY agency, LE department and military unit teaches the same safety standards. To have shot JFK he would have had to run this sequence of events:
1. He moved the selector on his AR-15 from SAFE to FIRE without a clearly defined threat. He would never do that.
2. He would have had to put his finger in the trigger guard without a clearly defined threat. He would never do that.
3. He put his finger on the trigger in preparation to shoot with no clearly defined threat. He would never do that.
3. He executed no safe muzzle control and allowed the muzzle to pass over the innocent bystanders and finally be in line with JFK before he "accidentally" pulled the trigger.
From a highly trained Secret Service Agent?
NO, IT NEVER HAPPENED!
BTW he remained a Secret Service Agent on executive protection details until he retired in 1991.
You believe the Secret Service knew he killed JFK and left him in that position?
Idiotic to say the least.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
yes, and they remain that way because they have what the psychiatrists term "Confirmation Bias" They describe it as: [The tendency to search for, interpret, favor, and recall information that confirms or supports one's prior personal beliefs or values.[1] It is an important type of cognitive bias that has a significant effect on the proper functioning of society by distorting evidence-based decision-making. People display this bias when they gather or remember information selectively, or when they interpret it in a biased way. For example, a person may cherry-pick empirical data that supports one's belief, ignoring the remainder of the data that is not supportive.]
Presented with mountains of real data, scientific evidence and testimony from dozens of people does not deter uneducated CT's. The CT's first and foremost WANT to believe some idiotic fairy tale, so no matter what is presented to counter it, they continue to believe it.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@TayNitty2100 that is simply another CT fairy tale. More importantly, not one CT can reference a scientific paper or website that details HOW an 8 mm Kodachrome movie film can be "altered" including removing frames and not have it be recognized by reputable engineering groups. The Zapruder camera ran at 18.3 frames per second so any removal of even a single frame would have immediately been noticeable, even to the uneducated viewer.
And I was an engineer with GE Medical Systems for 20 years and designed high-speed bi-plane heart catherization systems using 35 mm Arritecho cameras that filmed at 90 frames per second. That was in the 1960's. I do know a bit about filming techniques and what can and cannot be accomplished especially as it relates to 1963 technology.
It is near impossible to do "overlay printing" and not have it be immediately recognizable.
An 8 mm KODAK Kodachrome film is an analog medium, not digital. Once the silver hallide layer is developed the image points are microns in size. How do you alter that medium?
Answer: You can't.
The technology to alter film so seamlessly, such that it could fool experts, does not exist today and certainly did not exist in 1963.
Yes, today you can generate a digital copy, alter that file and make a new film, but even that would be recognizable.
It can't be done today let alone in 1963.
CBS contracted the ITEK corporation, a photographic laboratory which had the capability to do detailed forensic analysis of photographs and films, analyze the Zapruder film. ITEK determined that the film was unaltered.
KODAK engineers also did extensive studies and determined the film was not altered.
More to the point immediately after the assassination Abe Zapruder carried the film in the camera back to his office and locked it in his safe.
He ran into Harry McCormick (Dallas Morning News) and told him he wanted to give the film to the F.B.I. or Secret Service.
McCormick looked for Forrest Sorrels FBI to get the film processed. Abe went on camera for the TV networks to describe exactly what he filmed, including what turned out to be Z-313+ images when JFK's head was vaporized by the 6.5mm MC rifle round fired by Oswald.
Sorrels escorted Abe and his business partner to Kodak Labs to have the film processed. Three additional copies were made at Jamieson Labs that evening, two of which were given to the Secret Service the evening of 11/22/63
.
Richard Stolley negotiated purchase of print rights for Life Magazine the morning of 11/23/63 and sent the original film to Chicago where frames were printed in their 11/29/63 edition.
Even IF anyone with these two first day copies of the original film "altered" them, no one and no government agency had the original Zapruder film, so the exercise would have been pointless. The original film was in the possession of Time beginning the morning of 11/23/63 until it was returned to the Zapruder family in 1975.
The notion that the Zapruder film has been altered is ridiculous on so many different levels.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@warren411 and what evidence is there that anyone on Dealey Plaza had a "walkie-talkie"? None.
And you have it entirely wrong concerning the HSCA (but supported by the CT's that do no research.
The HSCA's conclusion was primarily based on acoustical data that was later proved to be invalid. Based on the evidence (even more than the Warren Commission had), the HSCA was heading toward the same conclusion reached by the Warren Commission, that Oswald was the sole assassin.
Then, at the 11th hour, the Dictabelt/acoustic evidence muddied the waters when the scientists concluded that there was a high probability that there were four shots, one of which originated from the area of the grassy knoll.
Based on that information, and running out of time and funding, the HSCA concluded that there was a "probable conspiracy". They never said there WAS a conspiracy.
They forwarded the case to the Justice Department.
Let's see if you agree with other conclusions reached by the HSCA. In addition to the fourth shot that originated from the grassy knoll, they also concluded the following:
1) the backyard photos were unaltered.
2) the autopsy photos and x-rays were unaltered and were unquestionably that of John Kennedy.
3) Kennedy was only hit from behind.
4) The shot from the area of the grassy knoll must have been a complete miss. It didn't even hit the limousine.
5) Oswald fired his Mannlicher-Carcano from the 6th floor of the Texas School Book Depository.
6) Oswald fired three times and got two hits.
7) The Single Bullet Theory is correct.
8) They did not know who was behind the "probable conspiracy" but they eliminated the following organizations from consideration: mafia, FBI, CIA, Secret Service, anti-Castro Cubans, Cuban government and the Soviet government.
Of course, it was later discovered that the acoustic evidence was totally invalid, eliminating the already-flimsy case for any "probable conspiracy".
Today, only those conspiracy theorists who must have been living under a rock still make the argument for a shot from the grassy knoll based on the acoustic evidence.
The HSCA report was reviewed ten years later and was overuled based on new data and a new conclusion was formed, in a 1988 Justice Department memo to the House Judiciary Committee, the Assistant Attorney General formally reviewed the recommendations of the HSCA report and reported a conclusion of active investigations. investigative reports from the FBI’s Technical Services Division and the National Academy of Science Committee determined that "reliable acoustic data do not support a conclusion that there was a second gunman", the Justice Department also concluded “that no persuasive evidence can be identified to support the theory of a conspiracy in the assassination of President Kennedy”
1
-
411 To dispel any notion that the "noted scientists" were a group that had a dog in the fight, they were a commission consisting of a number of scientists from the National Academy of Science. Yet, as it turned out, we never needed them to scientifically dismantle the HSCA acoustic findings.
A lowly drummer, Steve Barber, heard something that nobody else heard - Sheriff Decker talking on the other channel via cross talk.
The recording was not made at the relevant time of the shooting.
In 1982, the National Academy of Science commissioned a panel of experts to review the HSCA's finding with regards to the Dictabelt. The commission was headed by Norman Ramsey of Harvard.
There is one other glaring thing the HSCA scientists missed. You can hear the engine of the motorcycle. It's rpm is far too high for any motorcycle in the motorcade. Then it goes to idle. You can also hear the presidential motorcade rush by, sirens blaring. The Doppler effect is quite noticeable.
More recent studies have determined that, in all likelihood, the stuck mic was on the motorcycle of Officer Willie Price - who was riding toward the Trade Mart at a relatively high speed and then stopped in the parking lot. THEN you could hear the motorcade go rushing by during their mad dash to Parkland Hospital.
That recording was not made in Dealey Plaza. All along, Officer H. B. McClain, the officer the HSCA insisted is the one who had the stuck mic, was adamant that the stuck mic was not on his cycle.
Apparently, he was right. So Oswald acting a lone was NOT "nonsense."
The CT theories founded on unverified facts certainly ARE "nonsense."
1
-
1
-
@warren411 Throughout Ruby's testimony before the Commission, he repeated his request on numerous occasions that he be given an opportunity to take a lie detector test.7 Ruby's insistence on taking a polygraph examination is reflected right to the end of the proceedings where in the very last portion of the transcribed hearings Ruby states:
MR. RUBY. All I want to do is to tell the truth, and the only way you can know it is by the polygraph, as that is the only way you can know it.
CHIEF JUSTICE WARREN. That we will do for you. 8
Following Ruby's insistence on a polygraph test, the Commission initiated arrangements to have the FBI conduct such an examination.9 A detailed set of questions was prepared for the polygraph examination, which was set for July 16, 1964.10 A few days before the scheduled test, the Commission was informed that Ruby's sister, Eva Grant, and his counsel, Joe H. Tonahill, opposed the polygraph on the ground that psychiatric examinations showed that his mental state was such that the test would be meaningless.11
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@American_Observer Back in 1963 and before, it was a much simpler task to assassinate someone, President or mobster, than it is today. We sit and think about the assassination and believe "It's too incredulous to be true!"
One guy took the life of President Kennedy with a 20 year-old Italian army weapons platform? Yes.
And Timothy McVeigh alone (one supplier excluded) took down the Murrah Federal Building with 5,000 pounds of fertilizer and killed 168 people. That is inconceivable but also true.
11 terrorists killed >3,000 innocent people in NY City. True.
MLK was killed by a lone, disgruntled gunman.
The Pope was shot and almost killed by a lone, disgruntle gunman.
John Lennon was killed by a lone, disgruntled gunman.
President Reagan was almost killed by a lone, disgruntled gunman.
President McKinley was shot and killed by a lone, disgruntled gunman.
Gandhi was killed by a lone, disgruntled gunman.
King Ferdinand was killed by a lone disgruntled gunman.
We want to attach "government involvement" to any heinous act of violence because - deep down - we want to believe it takes that kind of unbridled force to accomplish it. It doesn't.
Many past Presidents, Prime Ministers and world leaders have been assassinated by a single disgruntled gunman.
Every bit of evidence and testimony compiled by 5 commissions (not all government sponsored) points to LHO and his 6.5 mm MC rifle having killed JFK.
It was just accurate enough and he was just good enough to do it; with a fair amount of luck being added.
"The government" or any other organization with the knowledge and experience on how to assassinate ANYONE, let alone a world leader, would never have hatched such an idiotic plot.
He acted alone and accomplished his goal, sad but true.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@LRRPEXILE You quote more moronic "facts" from moronic CT websites to try to prove idiotic events.
Here's Gov. Connally's actual testimony and there is NO correlation between what you posted and what was recorded. [automatic weapons?] Preposterous.
Mr. SPECTER. In your view, which bullet caused the injury to your chest, Governor Connally?
Governor CONNALLY. The second one.
Mr. SPECTER. And what is your reason for that conclusion, sir?
Governor CONNALLY. Well, in my judgment, it just couldn't conceivably have been the first one because I heard the sound of the shot, In the first place, don't know anything about the velocity of this particular bullet, but any rifle has a velocity that exceeds the speed of sound, and when I heard the sound of that first shot, that bullet had already reached where I was, or it had reached
that far, and after I heard that shot, I had the time to turn to my right, and start to turn to my left before I felt anything.
It is not conceivable to me that I could have been hit by the first bullet, and then I felt the blow from something which was obviously a bullet, which I assumed was a bullet, and I never heard the second shot, didn't hear it. I didn't hear but two shots. I think I heard the first shot and the third shot.
Mr. SPECTER. Do you have any idea as to why you did not hear the second shot?
Governor CONNALLY. Well, first, again I assume the bullet was traveling faster than the sound. I was hit by the bullet prior to the time the sound reached me, and I was in either a state of shock or the impact was such that the sound didn't even register on me, but I was never conscious of hearing the second shot at all.
Obviously, at least the major wound that I took in the shoulder through the chest couldn't have been anything but the second shot. Obviously, it couldn't have been the third, because when the third shot was fired I was in a reclining position, and heard it, saw it and the effects of it, rather--I didn't see it, I saw the effects of it--so it obviously could not have been the third, and couldn't have been the first, in my judgment. END
Gez.............
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Mal McKee True. We ALL sit and think about this and believe "It's too incredulous to be true!"
One guy took the life of the President with a 20 year-old Italian army rifle with a $4 telescopic sight? Yes.
And Timothy McVeigh alone (one supplier excluded) took down the Murrah Federal Building with 5,000 pounds of fertilizer and killed 168 people. That is inconceivable but also true.
11 terrorists killed >3,000 innocent people in NYC. True.
We want to attach "clandestine government" or a "mysterious cabal's" involvement to any heinous act of violence because - deep down - we want to believe it takes that kind of unbridled force to accomplish it, but it really doesn't.
MLK was killed by a lone, disgruntled gunman.
Mahatma Gandhi was killed by a lone disgruntled gunman.
Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin was killed by a lone disgruntled gunman.
The Pope was shot and almost killed by a lone, disgruntle gunman.
John Lennon was killed by a lone, disgruntled gunman.
President Reagan was almost killed by a lone, disgruntled gunman.
Every bit of evidence and testimony compiled by 5 commissions (not all government sponsored) points to LHO and his 6.5 mm MC rifle shooting JFK from the TSBD 6th floor.
It was accurate enough and he was just good enough to do it, with a fair amount of luck being added to accomplish it.
Any other explanation is conjecture and based on a lengthy series of "what if's" that is mind-boggling, but the CT's keep coming up with them and worse, believing them.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@timward3116 By all evidence and testimony Lee Harvey Oswald was the one shooter. If he had accomplices they were financial and physiological supporters and certainly did not take part in the actual shooting. JFK was hit by rifle rounds and the only forensic evidence found pointed to LHO's 6.5 mm Carcano rifle.
I always believe in Occam’s Razor: “The simplest explanation is almost always the correct one.” it was a different world back then.
Certainly JFK had no "Death Wish" as some claim, but heads of state took chances back in the 1960’s because they failed to comprehend that irrespective of how much you believe you are liked, there are very evil people in the world.
And JFK hated having overt Secret Service protection. He stated it made him look like “a South American dictator.”
We ALL sit and think about this and believe "It's too incredulous to be true!" But look at history:
One guy took the life of the President with a 20 year-old Italian army rifle with a $4 telescopic sight? Yes.
Timothy McVeigh alone (one supplier excluded) took down the Murrah Federal Building with 5,000 pounds of fertilizer and killed 168 people. That is inconceivable but also true.
11 terrorists killed >3,000 innocent people in NYC. True.
We want to attach "clandestine government" or a "mysterious cabal's" involvement to any heinous act of violence because - deep down - we want to believe it takes that kind of unbridled force to accomplish it, but it really doesn't.
MLK was killed by a lone, disgruntled gunman. True
Mahatma Gandhi was killed by a lone disgruntled gunman. True
Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin was killed by a lone disgruntled gunman. True
The Pope was shot and almost killed by a lone, disgruntle gunman. True.
John Lennon was killed by a lone, disgruntled gunman. True.
President Reagan was almost killed by a lone, disgruntled gunman. True.
Every bit of evidence and testimony compiled by 5 commissions points to LHO and his 6.5 mm MC rifle shooting JFK from the TSBD 6th floor.
It was accurate enough and he was just good enough to do it, with a fair amount of luck being added to accomplish it.
Any other explanation is conjecture and based on a lengthy series of "what ifs" that is mind-boggling.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@michaelhoffman176 Oswald's own POS Italian rifle was tested by BOTH the FBI and the US Army and found to be a "very accurate weapon." Oh, I forgot they too were in on the conspiracy weren't they? To say that's stupid reasoning is being kind.
LHO's own 6.5 mm MC not an exemplar rifle, was tested by both the FBI and the US Army as received and unaltered.
[Official FBI tests of Oswald's own MC. The three FBI experts each fired three shots from the weapon at 15 yards in 6, 7, and 9 seconds, and one of these agents, Robert A. Frazier, fired two series of three shots at 25 yards in 4.6 and 4.8 seconds. 808 At 15 yards each man's shots landed within the size of a dime. 809 The shots fired by Frazier at the range of 25 yards landed within an area of 2 inches and 5 inches respectively. 810 Frazier later fired four groups of three shots at a distance of 100 yards in 5.9, 6.2, 5.6, and 6.5 seconds. Each series of three shots landed within areas ranging in diameter from 3 to 5 inches. 811 Although all of the shots were a few inches high and to the right of the target, this was because of a defect in the scope which was recognized by the FBI agents and which they could have compensated for if they were aiming to hit a bull's-eye. 812 They were instead firing to determine how rapidly the weapon could be fired and the area within which three shots could be placed.]
[Ronald Simmons, of the Army's Ballistics Research Laboratory, bench tested Oswald's MC rifle for the Warren Commission, and found the dispersion to be .29 mils — a figure typical for high-powered rifles — and described it as "quite accurate" (3H442-443). It is in his official report. (A mil is 3.6” at 100 yards and a MOA ["Minute Of Angle"] is about 1" at 100 yard)]
1
-
@michaelhoffman176 And the snipers "didn't have communication" but the guy had a 2 foot antenna sticking out of his back pocket??
I am through trying to pound some common-sense into you.
You refuse to look at the real facts so you don't have to come to the correct conclusion that you are simply wrong. You have what the psychologists term "Confirmation Bias"
[The tendency to search for, interpret, favor, and recall information that confirms or supports one's prior personal beliefs or values. It is an important type of cognitive bias that has a significant effect on the proper functioning of society by distorting evidence-based decision-making.
People display this bias when they gather or remember information selectively, or when they interpret it in a biased way.
For example, a person may cherry-pick empirical data that supports one's belief, ignoring the remainder of the data that is not supportive.]
When presented with an inexhaustible amount of real data, scientific evidence and testimony from dozens of people, it still does not deter uneducated people like you from believing a fairy tale. You CT's first and foremost WANT to believe some idiotic theory, so no matter what is presented to counter it, you continue to believe it.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@FUNKINETIK The majority of you conspiracy believers refuse to look at baseline facts and in doing so you aren’t required to face up to the conclusion that you are simply wrong. You have what the psychologists term "Confirmation Bias" [The tendency to search for, interpret, favor, and recall information that confirms or supports one's prior personal beliefs or values. It is an important type of cognitive bias that has a significant effect on the proper functioning of society by distorting evidence-based decision-making.
People display this bias when they gather or remember information selectively, or when they interpret it in a biased way.
For example, a person may cherry-pick empirical data that supports one's belief, ignoring the overwhelming remainder of the data that is not supportive.]
When presented with an inexhaustible amount of real data, scientific evidence and testimony from dozens of learned and respected people, it still does not deter you from believing what you want, so desperately, to believe.
You first and foremost WANT to believe some premise, so no matter what is presented to counter it, you can and do continue to believe it.
No matter how preposterous.
1
-
@FUNKINETIK You are quoting the original HSCA report. It was conclusively proven wrong, many times. (Reread Confirmation Bias)
[HSCA, using an amateur film shot of the motorcade,[10] concluded that the recording originated from the motorcycle of police officer H. B. McLain, who later testified before the committee that his microphone was often stuck in the open position. However, McLain did not hear the actual recording until after his testimony, and upon hearing it he adamantly denied that the recording originated from his motorcycle. He said that the other sounds on the recording did not match his movements. Sirens are not heard on the recording until more than two minutes after what is supposed to be the sound of the shooting; however, McLain accompanied the motorcade to Parkland Hospital immediately after the shooting, with sirens blaring the entire time. When the sirens are heard on the Dictabelt recording, they rise and recede in pitch (the Doppler effect) and volume, as if passing by. McLain also said that the engine sound was clearly from a three-wheeled motorcycle, not the two-wheeler that he drove: "There's no comparison to the two sounds."[11]
The adult magazine Gallery published a pull-out laminated cardboard recording( like those on the back of Cereal boxes) of the Dictabelt recording in its July 1979 issue.[23] An assassination researcher named Steve Barber listened to that recording repeatedly and heard the words "Hold everything secure until the homicide and other investigators can get there" at the point where the HSCA had concluded the assassination shots were recorded.[3] However, those words were spoken by Sheriff Bill Decker about 90 seconds after the assassination, so the shots could not be when the HSCA claimed.[24]
In 2003, an independent researcher named Michael O'Dell reported that both the National Academy and Dr. Thomas had used incorrect timelines because they assumed the Dictabelt ran continuously. When corrected, these showed the impulses happened too late to be the real shots even with Thomas's alternative synchronization. In addition, he pointed out that the 95% or higher probability of a shot from the grassy knoll referred only to random noise (which all earlier research acknowledges), while the impulse could have been something else, he identifies it as speech, ignoring that the analysis that the impulse is from a shot is based on timing of echoes.[37]
A November 2003 analysis paid for by the cable television channel Court TV concluded that the putative gunshot impulses did not match test gunshot recordings fired in Dealey Plaza any better than random noise.[38] In December 2003, Thomas responded by pointing out what he claimed were errors in the November 2003 Court TV analysis.[39]
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
You start out again with wrong "facts". LHO's own 6.5 mm MC not an exemplar rifle, was tested by both the FBI and the US Army as received and unaltered./ They both found it to be "a very accurate weapon."
[Official FBI tests of Oswald's own MC. The three FBI experts each fired three shots from the weapon at 15 yards in 6, 7, and 9 seconds, and one of these agents, Robert A. Frazier, fired two series of three shots at 25 yards in 4.6 and 4.8 seconds. 808 At 15 yards each man's shots landed within the size of a dime. 809 The shots fired by Frazier at the range of 25 yards landed within an area of 2 inches and 5 inches respectively. 810 Frazier later fired four groups of three shots at a distance of 100 yards in 5.9, 6.2, 5.6, and 6.5 seconds. Each series of three shots landed within areas ranging in diameter from 3 to 5 inches. 811 Although all of the shots were a few inches high and to the right of the target, this was because of a defect in the scope which was recognized by the FBI agents and which they could have compensated for if they were aiming to hit a bull's-eye. 812 They were instead firing to determine how rapidly the weapon could be fired and the area within which three shots could be placed.]
[Ronald Simmons, of the Army's Ballistics Research Laboratory, bench tested Oswald's MC rifle for the Warren Commission, and found the dispersion to be .29 mils — a figure typical for high-powered rifles — and described it as "quite accurate" (3H442-443). It is in his official report. (A mil is 3.6” at 100 yards and a MOA ["Minute Of Angle"] is about 1" at 100 yard)]
And it was never an "impossible shot." The longest shot was 87 yards.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Oh, how insightful was that author?? Answer: None, really. He is really another Jim Marrs wannabe.
[Milton William "Bill" Cooper (May 6, 1943 – November 5, 2001) was an American conspiracy theorist, radio broadcaster, and author known for his 1991 book Behold a Pale Horse, in which he warned of multiple global conspiracies, some involving extraterrestrial life.[1][2][3] Cooper also described HIV/AIDS as a man-made disease used to target blacks, Hispanics, and homosexuals, and that a cure was made before it was implemented.[4]
[UFOs, aliens and the Illuminati
Cooper gained attention in Ufology circles in 1988 when he claimed to have seen secret documents while in the Navy describing governmental dealings with extraterrestrials, a topic on which he expanded in Behold a Pale Horse.[8] (By one account he served as a "low level clerk" in the Navy, and as such would not have had the security clearance needed to access classified documents.[16]) UFOlogists later asserted that some of the material that Cooper claimed to have seen in Naval Intelligence documents was actually plagiarized verbatim from their research, including several items that the UFOlogists had fabricated as pranks.[17] Don Ecker of UFO Magazine ran a series of exposés on Cooper in 1990.[18]
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
[Thomas Powers gave a critical review of the book in New York magazine stating: "There are a lot of curious theories about what happened to John F. Kennedy on November 22, 1963, but none quite so bizarre as David Lifton's, a theory that makes all previous speculation about the president's murder... look like the work of dull and sober men."[14] Powers' review was particularly harsh on Lifton's publisher, adding "Lifton is not to blame for this travesty" and asserting that Macmillan owed an apology to everyone involved in the transport of Kennedy's body from Dallas to Washington.[14] Reviewing the book for The New York Times, Harrison Salisbury wrote: "...no one before Mr. Lifton has constructed a theory so complicated, so quirky, in such violation of every law of common sense and reason."[15]
Discussing some of the books espousing a conspiracy in the assassination of Kennedy, Stephen E. Ambrose wrote in 1992: "Mr. Lifton argues that the conspirators who killed Kennedy got possession of Kennedy's body somewhere between Dallas and Washington, then removed his brain and otherwise altered his body and wounds to support a single-gunman theory. Mr. Lifton's account of how this was done is almost impossible to follow, almost impossible to believe and almost impossible to refute."[16]
Author and lawyer Gerald Posner has described Lifton's book as "one of the most unusual conspiracy theories" that "relies on an elaborate shell game involving rapid exchanges of coffins, a decoy ambulance, and a switched body shroud. He contends that once the body (of President Kennedy) was stolen from Air Force One, a covert team of surgeons surgically altered the corpse before the autopsy later that day...purportedly...so the autopsy physicians would determine the bullets that hit the President were fired from the rear...thereby sealing the case against Oswald."[17] Vincent Bugliosi devoted twelve pages to Lifton's theory in his 2007 book, Reclaiming History: The Assassination of President John F. Kennedy.[7] Bugliosi prefaced his comments stating that the "theory is so unhinged that it really doesn't deserve one word in any serious treatment of the assassination", but that he was "forced to devote some time to talking about nonsense of a most exquisite nature" due to the number of people who treated it seriously.[7]
The brain was removed during the autopsy, that is recorded and verified by multiple people and agencies.
And you REALLY have to believe in outright fairy tales to be convinced that Lifton has a rational story.
1