"ON TRIAL: LEE HARVEY OSWALD" -- A Personal Review (1 Viewer)

[Jack P]

Originally Posted by Neil Brock

Okay, I haven't given this hundreds of hours of thought but you want an alternate bullet path. Two or three shots from the building behind the motorcade. The first one misses and hits the curb and then strikes the pedestrian in the cheek. Another shot hits JFK, not sure from where. A second shot from the back strikes Connelly and the fatal head shot comes from in front from the grassy knoll. I love how Oswald all of a sudden became depicted as an "expert" marksman and great shot for purposes of the great lie. Of course if he was so great, then how do you explain the shot that hit the curb and missed everything and everybody by a mile? You can't have it both ways and say this guy was a grade AAAAA shot but then in the same breath say, OOOPS, he just wasn't that great with the first shot, only with the next two.

Sorry Neil, it's not enough to say "not sure from where". If you want to construct a plausible alternate scenario you have to tell us where that place was, and also account for how such an assassin was (1) not seen by anyone or (2) managed to escape the scene and (3) account for the lack of physical evidence from said location.


And on Oswald's marksmanship skills, the only lie is how buffdom tries to make him sound like a bad shot. His Marine rating was quite good, not the best but good enough to get the job done. And there's the matter of the latter two shots with the moving target going away from him in a near straight line with no further obstruction would mean those shots were *easier* than the first missed one.


Of course the CBS re-enactments coming up with the same ratios in the same setting would also tell us that what Oswald did was not exactly unique when it came to what marksmen of his skill were capable of doing.

 

[Jeff Gatie]

Your explanation doesn't fit the simulation. Both Kennedy and Connally react at the same time, so they were hit at the same time. There has to be one shot. Plus the vast majority of the witnesses, and the debunked acoustical evidence, says there were only three shots total. If your three explain the sim, the kill shot would be number 4. In addition, Connally's back wound was keyhole shaped, indicative of a tumbling bullet. Tumbling bullets have to have struck or penetrated something, which in this case was Kennedy's neck. So there is no way Connally was hit with a direct shot. In addition, if there were two shots, where is the bullet? Kennedy's wound was a through and through, it would have impacted the limo somewhere, but there was no bullet, or even damage found. So did it simply disappear in midair? As to the head shot, there is simply no way a head shot from the front can blow out the front of JFK's skull. Watch the Zapruder film. The front right of his skull explodes in a haze of red. If that was a shot from the front, there would be a bullet hole in the front and an explosion of red out the back. Plus, a Discovery Channel special took aim at a replica of the limo, with stand ins for the victims, and any of the popular grassy knoll or overlook shots would have to pass through the windshield, or would have killed Jackie along with JFK. Besides, if you already have 1 (or 2) snipers in place with a direct shot from behind, why bother having one in broad daylight on the knoll? Especially if you are going to frame the guy in the building behind the car? It makes no sense. As far as the first shot is concerned, since it was crossways to a moving target, through tree cover, it was actually the hardest shot of the three. The bullet could have hit a twig or branch, or LHO could have been off slightly on the angle of deflection needed to hit a moving target. The next two shots, while of greater distance, were much easier because there was no cover and the angle was basically dead on to a target moving away. Besides, in your scenario, one of your guys missed too, and presumably the mafia/pro-Castro/anti-Castro/LBJ/Soviet/etc. hired snipers were better than LHO, right?

 

[Neil Brock]

Originally Posted by Jeff Gatie

Your explanation doesn't fit the simulation. Both Kennedy and Connally react at the same time, so they were hit at the same time. There has to be one shot. Plus the vast majority of the witnesses, and the debunked acoustical evidence, says there were only three shots total. If your three explain the sim, the kill shot would be number 4. In addition, Connally's back wound was keyhole shaped, indicative of a tumbling bullet. Tumbling bullets have to have struck or penetrated something, which in this case was Kennedy's neck. So there is no way Connally was hit with a direct shot. In addition, if there were two shots, where is the bullet? Kennedy's wound was a through and through, it would have impacted the limo somewhere, but there was no bullet, or even damage found. So did it simply disappear in midair?

As to the head shot, there is simply no way a head shot from the front can blow out the front of JFK's skull. Watch the Zapruder film. The front right of his skull explodes in a haze of red. If that was a shot from the front, there would be a bullet hole in the front and an explosion of red out the back. Plus, a Discovery Channel special took aim at a replica of the limo, with stand ins for the victims, and any of the popular grassy knoll or overlook shots would have to pass through the windshield, or would have killed Jackie along with JFK. Besides, if you already have 1 (or 2) snipers in place with a direct shot from behind, why bother having one in broad daylight on the knoll? Especially if you are going to frame the guy in the building behind the car? It makes no sense.

As far as the first shot is concerned, since it was crossways to a moving target, through tree cover, it was actually the hardest shot of the three. The bullet could have hit a twig or branch, or LHO could have been off slightly on the angle of deflection needed to hit a moving target. The next two shots, while of greater distance, were much easier because there was no cover and the angle was basically dead on to a target moving away. Besides, in your scenario, one of your guys missed too, and presumably the mafia/pro-Castro/anti-Castro/LBJ/Soviet/etc. hired snipers were better than LHO, right?

I don't know what film you are watching where Kennedy and Connelly get hit at the same time because the way I see it, they aren't. Connelly is hit later. He also stated as such. Where is the bullet? Who the hell knows. Not found, found and make to disappear because it would change the picture the government wanted to paint? Who the hell knows. Just illogical that it wouldn't be found, unlike the magic bullet which miraculously just happened to appear on a stretcher in the hospital. Yeah, right. As for blowing out the front of JFK's skull, I don't know where you get that from because it was the back of his skull that got blown out.


So, you like these simulations which show exactly what they want people to believe. Show me the simulation of the first shot and the trajectory from the TSBD that has the bullet hitting where it did. By the way, did they find that bullet? So, how convenient that you can believe that that bullet disappered but not another one.

 

[Jeff Gatie]

Neil, how do you explain the keyhole wound in Connaly's back, if he was struck by a direct shot? Keyhole wounds are due to a tumbling bullet, a bullet which has been put off it's flight by striking something. Also, when each got hit can be debated, but given the keyhole wound, the number of shots heard by the majority of witnesses, the acoustic evidence, the computer sim, the fact that the rifle that fired the bullet was found, identified as owned by a guy who worked right where it was found, and no other sniper was seen, heard, or has ever showed up in the last 40+ years, exactly where does the preponderance of evidence lie? As to the back of his head being blown off, here's frame 313 I don't see any blood or brains at the back of his head. His hair is intact. However, the front right lobe is exploding in a mist of blood and brains. The autopsy photos showed the same (and no, they were not faked). So if the back of his head was blown off, where's the blood and brains at the back of his head?

 

[Neil Brock]

How do you explain the fact that only one person claims to have seen Oswald go to work that day carrying a large brown paper bag? That no one else who saw him enter the building that day remembered this fact?

 

[Jeff Gatie]

Answer the keyhole question, Neil. No jumping from buff point to buff point, you have to debunk the preponderance of evidence. You said Connally was hit by a direct shot. How then do you explain the oblong keyhole entry wound in his back? Also answer the fingerprints that were found by modern technology years after the fact, and point out in frame 313 where exactly the back of JFK's head is "blown off," while you are at it. Do that, and I'll address your paper bag that was seen in LHOs possession, and was found in the TSBD, with his prints on it!

 

[Mark Y]

Originally Posted by phil*



"It's the End of Days and all the conspiracy theorists are in heaven and are granted an audience before God Himself and they ask "God, we've been told that in Heaven all truth will be revealed and so we ask, who really killed JFK?" And God said "Now listen carefully, for I will say this only once and then I want you to get on with your lives in Heaven. Lee Harvey Oswald alone planned it and shot him.'' They all turn to each other and say "Wow, this conspiracy is bigger than we thought!"

Good one!


Seriously, though -- what does any of this conjecture have to do with the subject of the original post, which was a DVD release of an old TV special?


I did watch it when it first aired. (Though not again for many years, though I taped it on VHS.) As I recall, the first showing was a live (or at least partly live) telecast, and they had a 900 number to call to respond to a poll, with three choices. As I recall, the choices were (1) Oswald guilty alone, (2) Oswald not guilty, or (3) Oswald guilty as part of a conspiracy. They had Geraldo Rivera hosting the 1-900 segment and there were a bunch of people there. He read the three choices, and all these yahoos started screaming and cheering when he read choice (3). Then they went back to the trial and the verdict was read (of course, it was Oswald alone). They went back live to Geraldo with the results of the 1-900 poll, and the majority voted (3) Oswald guilty as part of a conspiracy. (I would have voted "not guilty" at the time, when I was just starting to read up on the assassination -- today, the only answer I can give is "I don't know.") Geraldo and whoever else was there reacted with some degree of disbelief that the poll did not find Oswald guilty alone. This is from memory, though, so may not be 100% correct.


I wasn't even born when JFK was killed. My parents were watching Oswald being "transferred" on TV Sunday morning. My dad has told this story many times. They started bringing Oswald down and my dad yelled, "Look at that, they're just marching him right through there with everyone milling about! Someone's gonna come up and shoot him!" And a split second later, someone did!

 

[phil*]

Originally Posted by Jeff Gatie

Neil, how do you explain the keyhole wound in Connaly's back, if he was struck by a direct shot? Keyhole wounds are due to a tumbling bullet, a bullet which has been put off it's flight by striking something. Also, when each got hit can be debated, but given the keyhole wound, the number of shots heard by the majority of witnesses, the acoustic evidence, the computer sim, the fact that the rifle that fired the bullet was found, identified as owned by a guy who worked right where it was found, and no other sniper was seen, heard, or has ever showed up in the last 40+ years, exactly where does the preponderance of evidence lie?

As to the back of his head being blown off, here's frame 313





I don't see any blood or brains at the back of his head. His hair is intact. However, the front right lobe is exploding in a mist of blood and brains. The autopsy photos showed the same (and no, they were not faked). So if the back of his head was blown off, where's the blood and brains at the back of his head?

A friend of mine once tried the following experiment years ago which we filmed: we filled a balloon with water,suspended it in the air,then my friend used a rifle to shoot at the balloon from IN FRONT at an angle..the effect was the same as you see in Zapruder frame 313..water exploded IN FRONT of the balloon,not out the back.

 

[Jeff Gatie]

You used a balloon to mimic a human skull and think it is definitive? Are you serious? Really? As if it had to be said, a balloon is not a skull. First of all, a balloon is micrometers thick, a skull is much thicker. A balloon is elastic rubber, a skull is stiff, hard bone. A balloon holds its contents at elevated pressure, a skull does not. Using a water balloon to mimic a human skull is like using a balloon animal to mimic a human body. When's the last time you saw safety inspectors strap balloon animal crash test dummies into cars?


Hundreds of years of ballistic science states exactly what happens when a skull is shot by a high powered rifle. If the round is energetic enough, the skull basically explodes. If (as in the case of the M-C 6.5x52mm FMJ round) the projectile is less energetic, it will punch a hole at the entrance wound and explode out the exit wound. I'm sorry *phil, but I'm afraid hundreds of years of ballistic science trumps you and your buddy plinking at a water balloon.

 

[phil*]

You used a balloon to mimic a human skull and think it is definitive? Are you serious? Really?

I never claimed a balloon had the same properties as a human skull. Still it's interesting how the balloon reacted.

Hundreds of years of ballistic science states exactly what happens when a skull is shot by a high powered rifle.

You mean that over the last few hundred years, ballistic science researchers have shot at live subjects? Which of course is the only way to duplicate what happened to JFK.

 

[Jeff Gatie]

No *phil, ballistics experts have observed a countless number of bullet wounds where the direction of the shot and type of firearm used are not in question, and they have observed the results I stated above. You don't have to shoot people yourself when you have things like crime, firing squads, and war to do your research for you.

 

[Mark Y]

Originally Posted by Jeff Gatie

No *phil, ballistics experts have observed a countless number of bullet wounds where the direction of the shot and type of firearm used are not in question, and they have observed the results I stated above. You don't have to shoot people yourself when you have things like crime, firing squads, and war to do your research for you.

How come Phil places the asterisk after his name, and you place it before his name? Are you trying to say Phil's asterisk is an "entry" asterisk? IT'S A CONSPIRACY!

 

[Jeff Gatie]

Whoops! I guess I long ago stopped looking at phil*s name, it's easy to recognize him by his posts. Neil ignores any ironclad evidence and shotguns more buff points to cover it up, phil* argues it until he digs a hole, then he insults and offends.

 

[Neil Brock]

Originally Posted by Jeff Gatie /forum/thread/278047/on-trial-lee-harvey-oswald-a-personal-review/240#post_3777907

Easy, he was framed! And they did a good job of it. Explain why he went to buy a car at a dealership when he didn't drive? Great line from JFK - it can be proven possible that an elephant can hang off a cliff with its tail wrapped around a daisy. I actually re-watched Executive Action last night, which I thought was a better than JFK and a much more plausible fiction than the Warren Report was. How do you explain the deaths of the witnesses within 3 years which the actuary put the odds at 100 trillion to one?

 

[Jack P]

Originally Posted by Neil Brock

Easy, he was framed! And they did a good job of it. Explain why he went to buy a car at a dealership when he didn't drive? Great line from JFK - it can be proven possible that an elephant can hang off a cliff with its tail wrapped around a daisy. I actually re-watched Executive Action last night, which I thought was a better than JFK and a much more plausible fiction than the Warren Report was. How do you explain the deaths of the witnesses within 3 years which the actuary put the odds at 100 trillion to one?

"Executive Action". A silly movie based on the silly work of Mark Lane, a thoroughly discredited author on things beyond the JFK assassination in addition to his JFK work.


As for the actuary thing, I hate to be the bearer of bad news to you Neil, but the House Committee looked into that and the London Sunday Times, who commissioned the study had to sheepishly admit there finding was off the mark because they approached it from the wrong perspective and asked the actuary the wrong question.


http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/deaths.htm


"The Editor has passed me your letter of 25th April.

"Our piece about the odds against the deaths of the Kennedy witnesses was, I regret to say, based on a careless journalistic mistake and should not have been published. This was realized by The Sunday Times' editorial staff after the first edition — the one which goes to the United States and which I believe you have — had gone out, and later editions were amended.


"There was no question of our actuary having got his answer wrong. It was simply that we asked him the wrong question. He was asked what were the odds against 15 named people out of the population of the United States dying within a short period of time to which he replied — correctly — that they were very high. However, if one asks what are the odds against 15 of those included in the Warren Commission index dying within a given period, the answer is, of course, that they are much lower. Our mistake was to treat the reply to the former question as if it dealt with the latter — hence the fundamental error in our first edition report, for which we apologize.


"None of the editorial staff involved in this story can remember the name of the actuary we consulted, but in view of what happened you will, I imagine, agree that his identity is hardly material.

Yours sincerely,
Antony Whitaker,
Legal Manager.
(4 HSCA 464-65)"


So you see Neil, your little assertion is based on an erroneous premise that was corrected the day after it was printed, only Mark Lane decided that info wasn't worth telling you.

 

[Jeff Gatie]

Cmon Neil, if they were going to frame Oswald, why would they plant fingerprints that wouldn't be found until someone invented technology they had no idea would even someday exist? Why wouldn't they just plant a big ol' fingerprint, instead of a smudge that would only show up using advanced late 20th century computer photo analysis? Obviously they had access to his prints (how I don't know, that's for you to explain), so you can't seriously think they planned to frame him decades after the fact, using technology they had no idea would someday exist, can you? Now answer that, and we'll take your next leap frogging from buff point to buff point seriously.


By the way Neil, JFK was the most flawed piece of "historical" film ever produced. It has more holes than swiss cheese, and most of them you could drive a 1962 Lincoln Continental suicide door convertible limousine through. Referencing JFK is something even most buffs hesitate from doing, so citing it does not help your case.

 

[phil*]

Originally Posted by Jeff Gatie

 

[Neil Brock]

Funny how the vast majority of the people think the LNT is malarkey, yet the believers who drink the government Kool Aid refer the disbelievers in completely disparaging terms. Sorry but exactly how does the fact that nobody in the police, FBI or government wanted to hear any witness testimony that did not back up their story leads anyone to believe that it was a completely fair, honest and thorough investigation of all of the facts? Oh, that's right, by labeling anyone who differed from the party line as a kook and discrediting their background and qualifications. And, hey, you wouldn't want to record or take on notes on Oswald's interrogation. He only supposedly killed the president. Not like it was any important crime that you would want to document everything on or anything. You want to know why people don't believe the LNT? Take a look at how flawed and slipshod the entire thing was handled, starting with letting the chief suspect get murdered two days later.

 

[Jack P]

Neil, are you still going to defend that actuarial study that the London Times admitted was based on a bogus premise?

It's amusing to me how whenever a question gets thrown back at you and your side, your only response is to pretend the question was never asked and then follow up with more non-sequiturs to deflect from the fact that you didn't answer the questions.

 

[Neil Brock]

Originally Posted by Jack P

Neil, are you still going to defend that actuarial study that the London Times admitted was based on a bogus premise?

It's amusing to me how whenever a question gets thrown back at you and your side, your only response is to pretend the question was never asked and then follow up with more non-sequiturs to deflect from the fact that you didn't answer the questions.

Okay, so what were the actual odds on that many of the people who had a peripheral involvement dying within 3 years? Not a hundred trillion to one. Okay, so maybe just a trillion to one? A hundred billion? What astronomical number is going to make it sound like an unfortunate coincidence?