JFK: THE CASE FOR CONSPIRACY

[damnedifIknow]

&feature=player_embedded#!

[William Seger]

2. Ah, the long-lost Zapruder film soundtrack

... with four shots.

Gotta love the way Groden continues to pile bullshit on top of lies throughout the video, and then stares earnestly into the camera at the end and says, "May all the truth be known." No doubt, it's that sort of sincere dedication to truthiness that won Groden the top consultant job on Oliver Stone's JFK fantasy, which simultaneous won large numbers of converts to the cult and yet thoroughly discredited JFK conspiracism.

[damnedifIknow]

3. I'm not interested in Mr. Groden really

I'm interested in what the doctors and witnesses had to say. I can't dismiss eyewitness testimony easily.

[William Seger]

4. The witnesses don't agree with each other

... which is fairly common, since perceptions and memories are both fallible. Conspiracists have an easy way to resolve that: They simply assume that anyone who supports the "official story" is wrong or lying while anyone who says anything different must be telling the real truth. But the conventional way of resolving conflicting witness testimony is to favor that which is supported by the evidence. The Zapruder film, the autopsy photos and the X-rays all support a hit from behind -- no massive exit wound on the rear of the head and no wound at all on the left side where a shot from the grassy knoll would have exited. On the other hand, no physical or documentary evidence supports a second shooter, anywhere. This forces conspiracists to further assume that the evidence we have must have been faked, somehow, while all the "real" evidence must have been covered up. How plausible is that, really, and how plausible is it that the "real perps" were too stupid to come up with a plot that didn't require all that fake evidence and cover-up in the first place?

I don't claim to "know for a fact" that there wasn't a conspiracy, but I do claim that evidence-based reasoning says Oswald shot JFK, beyond reasonable doubt, and that there is no good reason to believe there was a second shooter.

[damnedifIknow]

5. In this video

I see all the witnesses describing the same type of head wound which was a gaping exit wound in the rear. I'm not convinced either way about this but the witnesses and doctors are hard to discount. I'm also curious as to why all the info about this hasn't been released and won't be released for years to come. Why not release all the information and put this to bed once and for all?

[William Seger]

6. Well, yeah, "all the witnesses" that Groden wants you to see

... and none of the witnesses that say they saw precisely what the documentary evidence shows, including Zapruder himself. If you get all your information from conspiracists like Groden, then I can tell you from personal experience that you will probably end up a conspiracist, too. But don't expect Groden to tell you that some of the same witnesses in that video said inconsistent things at the time, and that some of them later changed their recollections. We know that JFK's head was a bloody mess, and the doctors at Parkland were trying to save his life, not do a forensic analysis. As I said, the documentary evidence clearly says the shot was from behind, and experts who have examined the Zapruder film and the autopsy photos and X-rays have found no evidence of fakery.

But no, there is no putting conspiracy theories "to bed once and for all." The HSCA was formed because of pressure from conspiracists who believed the Warren Commission had deliberately covered up evidence. The HSCA had access to all the WC information and they found nothing in it to implicate a second shooter. However, based primarily on a faulty analysis of the infamous Dictabelt recording, they decided that there was "probably" a second shooter and therefore a conspiracy. However, the latest Dictabelt analysis proves that it does not record the shooting.

But conspiracy theories can never be put to bed because conspiracy theories are based on paranoid speculation and on rationalization that only pretends to be evidence-based reasoning. People like James Fetzer who can imagine that every photo and movie taken that day in Dealey Plaza has been altered to hide "the truth" are not swayed by evidence or by lack of evidence.

[damnedifIknow]

7. It is strange though

how our country and indeed the world changed, and not for the better after JFK. It's almost like JFK was in the way of someone doing their dirty work. If Oswald did act alone then they picked the right man for the job because it was truly a super human effort on his part to hit a moving target from that distance with a tree partially in the way. I think he could have picked a better spot in my opinion.

[zappaman]

8. Hitting a slow moving target travelling in a straight line is not that difficult.

And as it turned out, he picked the perfect spot since he was able to flee the scene.

[jimmyc1983]

9. I dont understand?

I dont understand how you can blatantly dismiss huge amounts of evidence to keep repeating the word 'conspiracy'?

There is Motive (military)

There is the fact that the wounds dont match up unless several shooters were firing at the car

There is a police recording that picks up between 6 and 7 different gunshots (several experts have confirmed through each echo how many there are and the distance from the recorder each is apart from the potential 7th)

The reloading sound clearly shows shots coming quicker than oswalds gun can be physically reloaded

Even Josiah Thompson has confirmed that the '2-inch' forward head movement HE discovered is actually a horizontal lens stretching due to movement, and that the head does indeed travel backwards and backwards only

There are several REAL FBI memo's that directly implicate the CIA (and George Bush) involvement the assassination, one by J. Edgar Hoover HIMSELF.

Oswald picked a far more difficult spot to shoot at, moving down, accelerating, and away, through a tree! as opposed to slowing down, level, coming towards him?!

Even with the revised official story, the gunshot wounds dont match up nor account for the throat wound, especially all from 1 angle (from a guy who's so bad at shooting he picks the worst of his opportunities to take his shot).

There is an abundance of witnesses and some video/photographic evidence of a man on the knoll, who is chased by a hundred witnesses who believed they either saw the shooter or saw what angle the shot came from, or heard the shot from

The spray from Kennedy's head wound sprayed the police and SS agent at Kennedy's back left side (A shot from front right - knoll) and not kennedys front left side (A shot from the back - Library)

There is SO SO SO much more. HOW ARE YOU IGNORING ALL OF THIS?

[zappaman]

10. I stopped reading here...

'There is a police recording that picks up between 6 and 7 different gunshots (several experts have confirmed through each echo how many there are and the distance from the recorder each is apart from the potential 7th) "

Since you really don't know what you are talking about.

Welcome back and enjoy your stay!

[MrMickeysMom]

11. You answered your question in the last four words, jimmy…

You'll get that from the usual willful ignorance herein… Do you really think you can argue with "stu"?

http://www.blackopradio.com

[Spider Jerusalem]

12. Because not a single word of it is true

The wounds match up perfectly with the trajectory from the TSBD. This was studied extensively for the HSCA. They looked at autopsy records and angles and trajectories and the shots all came from behind from a cone that centres on the sixth floor window.

There is no such police recording. There never was such a police recording. There was a claimed recording that was purported to be evidence of a fourth shot. It wasn't, the motorcycle it came from wasn't in the motorcade, there was no police motorcycle in the area it was supposed to be recorded in at the time (there are films and photos that show there wasn't).

Oswald took the shot he had, which was at a range of less than 100 yards on a target moving at around 12mph and directly in his line of sight. From his point of view, on that trajectory, the relative movement would have been very little.

There are no credible witnesses reporting any man on the grassy knoll. Even if there were it wouldn't mean much of anything because the shot that killed Kennedy came from behind, from the TSBD. If a shot had come from the grassy knoll it would have entered the right side of his head and probably blown out the left side of his head (and, probably would have gone on to kill Jackie, given their relative positions). This did not happen.

A pressure wave from the bullet passing through Kennedy's head made it explode. It was very messy and it sprayed blood and brain matter in, basically, all directions. The major direction of blood and tissue spray, however, was forward, not back (and Kennedy was in a moving car).

No-one is ignoring anything; the actual evidence contradicts all of these claims.

[William Seger]

13. Short answer: I dismiss your "huge amounts of evidence" because it's bullshit

I haven't "ignored" any of that; I can tell you precisely what's wrong with every claim in your post, without even doing any further research. I don't feel much like revisiting for the umpteenth time most of what you claim -- if you're really interested in what's wrong with it, then you'll need to look beyond the conspiracy hucksters you got it from, as I have -- but I will comment on this:

> Even Josiah Thompson has confirmed that the '2-inch' forward head movement HE discovered is actually a horizontal lens stretching due to movement, and that the head does indeed travel backwards and backwards only

I'll comment on that because it's fairly new bullshit, and because whether or not Thompson was the first person to notice that forward snap is irrelevant, since many others have. I independently noticed it when someone posted a link to a good quality version of the Zapruder film, and then after looking around the web, I found that many other people had not only noticed it but had quantitatively analyzed it with great accuracy. Thompson's recent claim that it's really just a motion blur is abject nonsense, proving nothing except Thompson's complete incompetence as a photo analyst, but conspiracy buffs gleefully accept what he says without giving it any real thought.



Frame 313 is blurred by camera motion, but that doesn't mean that you can assume that any "horizontal elongation" which Thompson talks about is a result of that motion. The forward snap cannot be explained by the camera motion for a simple reason that Thompson completely missed, but which was already taken into account in the gif above. Notice that the white lines at Connally's head, Jackie's hat and left arm, and the door handle are all set to be on the right side of those motion blurs, such that all the blur of those objects in 313 is toward the left of those same objects in 312. Since movement of the camera will affect everything in the frame in the same way, no motion blur caused by camera motion can be towards the right of where an object is in frame 312; ALL the camera motion blur is towards the left. Therefore, the forward snap of JFK's head CANNOT be explained by camera motion blur, because that would imply that the light area behind the head has a blur streak toward the right of where it is in 312, which is completely impossible. Furthermore, the PROOF is that if Thompson were correct, then we would see exactly the same "illusion" of a forward snap of Connally's head, but we don't. We can clearly see the leftward motion blur of the back of Connally's head, as expected. Thompson was right the first time years ago: The head absolutely DID snap forward immediately after the hit, and the REAL laws of physics absolutely say that the hit must have came from behind. If you're going to insist on believing a conspiracy theory, then it needs to incorporate these irrefutable facts or people who understand what I'm saying here will not take you seriously. If there was a "grassy knoll" shooter, then he missed.

[MrMickeysMom]

14. You get the disinformation version of the DUzy...

You announce with false authority what blurred motion is on 313 or any other frame when in fact, you draw your "sources" from a narrow group of people and not from any real analysis from those who originally saw the frames.

You are continually presenting disinformation and you know it. Meanwhile, you present your "frames" which have nothing to do with what authentic testimony actually saw.

The conspiracy never ceases to amaze me. The real conspiracy is keeping up the disinformation alive. It's death is slow and I'm less than amused to see it in a forum like this.

Read credible documents, or STFU.

[William Seger]

15. I provided a link to a VERY credible document

... and if you weren't so afraid of looking, you'd know that there's plenty more out there. I explained EXACTLY WHY Thompson doesn't know what he's talking about, so don't try to tell me he's credible just because you prefer to believe him. It really doesn't matter that you don't understand it, and it's laughable that such a close-minded, willfully ignorant person tells me to STFU. Some conspiracists simply refuse to even see the forward snap; some see it but refuse to understand what it certainly means; and some search in vain for another explanation -- any explanation, such as Thompson's motion-blur nonsense.

> You are continually presenting disinformation and you know it.

Ah, yes, the delusional conspiracists final stand against having their unfounded speculations crushed by reality: "You KNOW I'm right! If you disagree with me, you must be lying!" Is that really working for you?

[MrMickeysMom]

16. The hell you did...

Stop trying to embarrass yourself, Billy.

[Ace Acme]

17. Where do you get that gif and how do we know it wasn't synthesized to show the desired results? nt

[William Seger]

18. Do you ever research anything?

That one is from jfk-online.com, but before I came across that one, I had done several of my own, including:







Here's one that shows (to anyone who understands rudimentary physics) why the "back and to the left" cannot be the result of the bullet hit (i.e. it comes too late and it shows acceleration):



> ... how do we know it wasn't synthesized to show the desired results?

Well, first, if you are observant and can disabuse yourself of what fake Hollywood gunshots look like, you might notice the snap while watching the Zapruder film in real-time, which is how I first noticed it. But you can also do your own analysis using any version you care to. Mine were all done with frame captures from this site, which were the best quality I could find. (And btw, the were produced by a conspiracist.)

[damnedifIknow]

19. What about Hickey?

[William Seger]

20. Uh huh, ABO

Anybody But Oswald. You're even willing to give up speculation that there was a conspiracy as long as you can have SOMEONE other than Oswald pull the trigger?

Unfortunately for that theory, among other problems, two fairly large fragments of a 6.5mm copper-jacketed bullet were found inside the limo. Even if you distrust the HSCA Firearms Panel analysis linking them to Oswald's gun (and I'm sure you do), those fragments could not have come from an AR-15.

Was the CE 567 bullet nose portion found on the right side of the front seat of the Presidential limousine fired from the CE 139 Mannlicher-Carcano rifle?

(139) CE 567 is the nose portion of a damaged 6.5-millimeter caliber full metal-jacketed, lead core bullet. The weight of the exhibit is 41.5 grains. The class characteristics on the jacket are four lands and four grooves. The panel could not determine the direction of twist.

(140) The panel found the physical characteristics of this bullet fragment to be the same as the bullet portion of the CE 141 cartridge found in the chamber of the CE 139 rifle. When it compared CE 567 with the two CE 572 bullets test-fired by the FBI in the CE 139 rifle, it noted a correspondence among the individual identifying characteristics. (See fig. 23A and 23B.)

(141) The panel concluded that all were fired through the same barrel.

(142) The panel also compared CE 567 with bullets it test-fired in the CE 139 rifle. The panel was unable to identify its tests with CE 567. The panel attributed this to changes in the bore caused by repeated firing of the rifle by the FBI and the Infantry weapons Evaluation Branch of the U.S. Army to test its accuracy, (76) as well as deterioration of the surfaces because the rifle had not been properly cleaned, lubricated, and maintained. For the same reasons, the panel was unable to identify its test-fired bullets with those of the FBI. The panel's test-fired bullets also could not be identified with each other, probably as a consequence of the poor condition of the barrel.

Was the CE 569 bullet-base portion found on the floor beside the right front seat of the Presidential limousine fired from the CE 139 rifle?

(143) CE 569 is a base portion of a damaged 6.5-millimeter caliber full metal-jacketed, lead core bullet. The weight of 20.6 grains. The rifling impressions on the jacket are four lands and four groves, right twist. The physical characteristics of this bullet are the same as the bullet portion of the CE 141 cartridge found in the chamber of the CE 139 rifle.

(144) The panel microscopically compared this bullet jacket with the two bullets (CE 572) test-fired by the FBI from the CE 139 rifle. Correspondence of individual identifying characteristics was found on CE 569 and the FBI test-fired bullets. (See figs. 24A and 24B.)

(145) The panel concluded that the CE 569 was fired through the same barrel as the FBI test-fired bullets.

(146) Next, the panel compared CE 569 with bullets it test-fired in the CE 139 rifle. The panel was unable to identify its tests with the CE 569. The panel attributed this to changes in the bore caused by repeated firings of the rifle by the FBI and the Infantry Weapons Evaluation Branch of the U.S. Army to test its accuracy,(77) as well as to deterioration of the surfaces because the rifle had not been properly cleaned, lubricated, and maintained. For the same reasons, the panel was unable to identify its test-fired bullets with those of the FBI. The panel's test-fired bullets also could not be identified with each other, probably as a consequence of the poor condition of the barrel.

Were the CE 567 bullet nose portion and the CE 569 bullet base portion found in the Presidential limousine components of the same bullet?

(147) The panel was unable to determine whether CE 567 and CE 569 were components of the same bullet. The panel weighed and measured the fragments and found their combined weight and length did not exceed that of a single-fired projectile. Nevertheless, the panel could not match the two fragments physically because a considerable portion of the bullet jacket was absent.

(148) Both bullet fragments were examined for cannelures. The panel found only one cannelure present; it was on the base portion of the CE 569 bullet.