Sure, which is a good reason for people complaining about skeptics of the Lone Nut theory and their alleged motives should refrain from throwing stones.
As I’ve already pointed out, at best we have experts on both sides of the argument.
They also “investigated” the TSBD, so Occam’s Razor indicates that it was connected with the murder. The difference is that they didn’t find anything on the grassy knoll, whereas investigation of the TSBD found a sniper’s nest built of boxes with an employee’s fingerprints on them, a rifle later shown to have fired the shots with his palm print on it, later testimony that established that the same employee had brought a package wrapped in brown paper to work that morning, and the same employee was later arrested after fleeing the scene and killing a police officer.
Then why weren’t there any entry wounds to the front of Kennedy’s head?
There was a wound to the back of his neck, which followed a downward trajectory. How could a bullet from the front go upward thru Kennedy’s throat? And there was a larger wound to the back of his head.
Cite. So the evidence shows that JFK was struck by two bullets from the back.
What was that about Occam’s Razor again?
Regards,
Shodan
Teach the controversy!!
In that interview, do they claim to have shot someone in the head to re-create this alleged ‘jet effect’?
As I recall they Haags were shooting at gels to try and salvage the Single Bullet Theory.
Indeed.
A point I made as well. I was content to leave it there, though since then you’ve continued to use the Dictabelt evidence to make your case, even though it appears to be inconclusive.
Perhaps other evidence should be introduced, such as the ballistics of a shot from the front vs. the back?
What lies did she tell? Can you be more specific?
The photos were discovered within a few hours of the shooting, and were later established to have been taken with Oswald’s camera in Oswald’s back yard.
Cite. What is it about pictures of him, discovered within a few hours of the shooting, taken with his camera, in his back yard, holding his rifle, that leads you to conclude that it is faked?
Regards,
Shodan
I see that you’re assigning a motive to these ballistic experts, presumably to undermine their credibility. Curiously, you didn’t do this with the experts you’ve cited, such as Thomas. Why not write that Thomas was trying to salvage the Grassy Knoll Shooter Theory?
Ballistic gel was created to study the effects of gunshots on living tissue. Do you have some evidence that it fails to mimic the properties of human flesh, and thus can’t be used for its intended purpose?
At this point I really don’t know if you’re just trolling or not. But in the off chance that you’re not. . .
You can’t intelligently, and logically just wave away evidence that you don’t like. (Yes one can wave away anything they’d like but I said intelligently.)
Oswald was without doubt there that day.
He worked there, and was seen by coworkers there.
He was seen bringing in a package, that he said were curtain rods that in retrospect was a rifle.
The rifle was his.
There is a receipt that it was his.
There is a photo of him holding it.
His wife said that it’s him and his rifle.
The rifle has his palm print.
The bullet that was in Connally was fired by this gun.
None of this is in dispute.
Now you can wave all of this away, but you can’t do it intelligently any more than you can say the run rises in the west, and there is no such thing as gravity.
So you really need to address these facts if you want to argue that Oswald wasn’t there. I have no idea how you can do that. But if you can’t do that, and you argue it anyway, no one who knows the facts will take you seriously.
And that is where you are now.
Looks like my question got lost in the shuffle.
If Kennedy was shot from ahead and to his right, shouldn’t there be an exit wound on the rear left side of his head?
There was. They took a head from one of the secret clones and shot it before switching out the original.
Unlike others here, I don’t bend over backwards denying evidence that might tend to favor other hypotheses.
They didn’t find anyone there standing around waiting to be arrested. They did find evidence someone was there. And now we have acoustical evidence that a shot came from that location.
An employee’s fingerprints were found at his place of work?
<yawn>
Are we talking about the Mauser cops swore they found, or another rifle?
This rifle you’re speaking of - you say it shot from the Grassy Knoll? Or maybe it shot some of the shots heard? Or was linked to a bullet removed from Kennedy’s body during the autopsy?
The palm print that FBI examiner Sebastian Latona couldn’t find on the weapon? The Palm print that was not photographed on the weapon?
http://miketgriffith.com/files/palmprint.htm
The bag witnesses testified too that was too small to hold a rifle?
Like other employees, Oswald left work as no further work was done that day. Hard to characterize that as ‘fleeing’. Who else did not return to work?
Carolyn Arnold: ‘never returned’ to work that day.
Virgie Rackley: ‘did not re enter the building’ after the assassination.
Virginia Barnum: ‘went home’ without doing any further work.
Charles Givens: “After the president was shot, I returned to the Texas School Book Depository building and was told by a Dallas policemen that I could not re enter the building.”
Gloria Holt: ‘did not return to work that day’.
Stella Mae Jacob: “Following the assassination of the president I tried to return to work in the Texas School Book Depository, but was told by other employees that no one would be allowed in the building so I did not return to work that day.”
Judy Johnson: went home without doing any further work.
Delores Kounas: did no further work and went home.
So, no - leaving work when the place was closed for business doesn’t look very suspicious to me.
That is also disputed, and irrelevant in any case.
That was quite a Gish Gallop you did there. You must be winded!
There’s quite a bit of problems relating to the autopsy. Best not to go there until we deal with other items in this credal litany.
Actually the alleged entrance wound was in the back, not the neck. It was Gerald Ford who altered the document to fudge the facts.
http://www.jfklancer.com/Ford-Rankin.html
In any case a bullet on a downward slope from the entrance wound would not be on a path to exit the throat.
There is no persuasive evidence that the throat wound and the back wound were caused by one bullet.
Observers differ as to the size and extent of the head wound. Immediately after the shooting doctors and medical staff observed what would appear to be an exit wound in the back of the President’s head.
http://www.jfklancer.com/ParklandDrs.html
As I have pointed out, what you have is a chain consisting mainly of weak links.
It appears the Haags were trying to show that the Single Bullet Theory was tenable (i.e. show that the so-called ‘pristine’ state of a bullet supposedly found on a hospital gurney could have passed though Kennedy without much deformation) and conceivably have struck John Connally etc.
But that is irrelevant to the ‘jet effect’ which was under discussion. I was unable to find anything to substantiate the Haags tried to reproduce that.
They can’t just be testing the outcome?
They say so in the interview.
Are we allowed to accuse others of being ‘possible trolls’? If so I will have to remember that when dealing with responses to my posts which are deliberately offensive or provocative with the apparent aim of eliciting an angry response.
I can’t and I don’t do it.
This much is true. But lots of people worked at TSBD so it hardly amounts to much with respect to accusations of a serious crime like murder.
This is a complex claim - and not a matter of indisputable fact.
You can’t smuggle in your assumptions as if they were evidence - that’s pure circularity.
One of Oswald’s co-workers saw him enter the building, and did not observe anything in his hands, let alone a rifle-sized parcel.
https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=35#relPageId=386
Another ‘indisputable fact’ bites the dust. :smack:
All dubious claims, which have been widely disputed with evidence and arguments to back them up. If you were familiar with this area of study you’d already know that.
The so-called ‘Magic Bullet’ was not recovered from Connally’s body, but was supposedly found on a gurney in the hospital where the victims were taken after the attack.
Surely anyone who even pretends to instruct others on this case should know that much.
You are claiming disputed things are not in dispute.
That is just silly.
If you honestly believe your dubious claims and unsupported assertions are as undeniable as gravity you are severely in the grip of dogmatism.
You appear to have misunderstood what I posted, which lead you to post this mish-mash of fanatical gibberish.
I don’t think it can be shown that Oswald was at the so-called ‘sniper nest’ on the 6th floor at the time of the shooting.
If you want people to take you seriously, you need to demonstrate that you can understand the written word and that you can tell the difference between your unsubstantiated assertions and ‘undisputed facts’.
And that is where you are now.
What side of the back of his head was it on?
If you concede that Oswald worked there, and was there that day, how can you also say that Oswald lacked the opportunity to commit the crime?
I read the interview and also looked at other discussions of the program. I could find no claim that the Haags tried to re-create the so-called jet effect.
This is what the interview reads about their test on a simulated head:
“They’re showing that this bullet came apart and there are legitimate physical reasons why this occurred. It struck the skull bone… we’re able to reproduce this fragmentation aspect in live fire testing”
AFAICT the fragmentation of bullets is not the issue WRT the ‘jet effect’.
Apparently where the Lone Nut Theory would posit an entrance wound should be.
As I said, lots of people worked there.
But you seem to have [inadvertantly] clipped out the bit where I discussed the issue:
“I don’t think it can be shown that Oswald was at the so-called ‘sniper nest’ on the 6th floor at the time of the shooting.”
Witnesses all seem to place Oswald on the lower floors around that time. So if it is true that someone shot from this so-called ‘sniper nest’ it’s most likely it wasn’t Oswald, because he was somewhere else.
Here’s the section of the interview I am referencing (my bolding):
FLATOW: Something that’s very graphic in the Zapruder film is that the president, as he - as the head shot happens, his head goes backwards as if he’s getting shot from the front. It arches backwards. How do you explain that?
HAAG: Oliver Stone’s one of the ones who I just saw recently stand up and say we can all see that the president’s obviously shot from the front because his head moves back. There’s two explanations for this. One’s given by the lifelong wound ballistician named Larry Sturdivan, who worked for the wound ballistics lab. It may be neurological response. I’m not prepared to affirm or refute that at all. There’s a physical explanation called Newton’s third law of motion. And Mike and I have demonstrated this a number of times.
A doctor - Professor Alvarez also demonstrated it. It’s basically if a bullet goes into the back of Kennedy’s head and propels a quantity of brain matter that we see in frame 313 out the front, it’s basically a propulsive effect, a jet effect, action reaction. Not the consequence of a frontal strike. The momentum of a bullet stopping in a human being barely moves him at all. And if that were true, if Oliver Stone were right, then there’d be a bullet in there because there’s no exit in the back or in the left side of Kennedy’s head.