The Coup D'etat of November 1963

[vienna]

You guys really ought to check out the "Nova" progran I linked to in my previous post; a lot of what you are discussing here is covered in rather great detail in the program, with demonstrations....



<O>

[mapuc]

Originally Posted by vienna

You guys really ought to check out the "Nova" progran I linked to in my previous post; a lot of what you are discussing here is covered in rather great detail in the program, with demonstrations....



<O>

Would gladly have seen it, but...

"We're sorry, but this video is not available in your region due to right restrictions."

Markus

[TarJak]

Originally Posted by mapuc

Who's right

Made a search for Zapruder and found this on Smithsonian.com


http://www.smithsonianmag.com/histor...224928822.html

Markus

In trying to understand conspiracy theorists, I used to think that what conspiracy theorists were really doing on some level was grieving, their fantasies a form of displaced love for JFK, but I’ve come to think the love involved is mostly self-love, their self-congratulatory assertion of superiority over mere facts. By the way, yes, I do believe there were some real conspiracies in history—Julius Caesar’s assassination for instance—I just think they need to be proven, fact by fact, not by fantasy and supposition.

Read more: http://www.smithsonianmag.com/histor...#ixzz2lJv211F7
Follow us: @SmithsonianMag on Twitter

Best quote in the article!

[mapuc]

So Bubblehead1980 mentioned many different motive to the assassin

Have not yet seen any mentioned the possibility that the motive could have something to do with the history of the Kennedy family

This could very well be the reason to why RFK also got killed.

I'm not saying this IS the correct motive behind the death of the two men from the Kennedy clan.

Markus

[Bubblehead1980]

Originally Posted by TarJak

Best quote in the article!

I think some wild theories are a form of grieving.However, in the case of JFK a conspiracy is backed by the evidence.Many witnesses report shots from grassy knoll, report more than 3 shots.Those wounded could not have possibly been wounded by just two bullets. That is why one the zapruder film became public, there was such outcry.People saw something much different than they were told and evidence contradicts the government's story.I think most people(60% is a number I have seen thrown around) believe there was a conspiracy, now just need to clear up the details of who, and why.Fairly easy to establish this and believe the government knows, one day the full truth will perhaps see the light.I just want the record set straight so those involved like LBJ are seen for what they were and not given respect and honor, especially before enough time goes by that no one alive in that time period is around to tell the truth.

[TarJak]

Now you are just being ridiculous. Not a lot of what you are saying makes any sense at all. Your assertion that the shot came from the front flies in the face of the same evidence you claim proves your point.

You show an autopsy photo but ignore the actual testimony of the doctors that were there and a photo from the same procedure that clearly shows an entry wound in the back of Kennedy's head.

You make wild accusations of a conspiracy based on nothing other than your own belief in the conspiracy. Yet again you are showing yourself up as a self absorbed child without the maturity to look at something objectively.

As a lawyer in training you should pay better attention to the actual evidence rather than listening to the child inside that shouts that it knows everything and listens to nothing.

[Cybermat47]

Originally Posted by TarJak

Yet again you are showing yourself up as a self absorbed child without the maturity to look at something objectively.

That reminds me of me.

Time to rethink my life

[Bubblehead1980]

Originally Posted by TarJak

Now you are just being ridiculous. Not a lot of what you are saying makes any sense at all. Your assertion that the shot came from the front flies in the face of the same evidence you claim proves your point.

You show an autopsy photo but ignore the actual testimony of the doctors that were there and a photo from the same procedure that clearly shows an entry wound in the back of Kennedy's head.

You make wild accusations of a conspiracy based on nothing other than your own belief in the conspiracy. Yet again you are showing yourself up as a self absorbed child without the maturity to look at something objectively.

As a lawyer in training you should pay better attention to the actual evidence rather than listening to the child inside that shouts that it knows everything and listens to nothing.

There you go again, getting personal.I have looked at the evidence from both sides, it why I switched my belief from the lone wolf, single shooter named Oswald to believing he was in fact a patsy for the actual assassins.I learned who Allen Dulles, Richard Helms were, I learned about the Federal Reserve, LBJ and others.The many who suddenly began dying, it's called tying up loose ends.Steve, where are thou? Personal attacks and all.

No, I base what I said here, on what I saw and my experiences with firearms etc. The evidence the government presented is garbage, it does not fit.The triangulation of fire is what clearly happened, I once bought the government's bs on this coup d'etat but it just does not fit.The house committee later found his assassination was a conspiracy.

Look at the photos I posted, back and right side of his head wiped out, skin flap held on part of the skull, his hair looks "wet", it's from the blood and brain matter blown out by the bullet, if bullet entered from the back, it would be the front and side of his head blown out, not the back and right side.Bullet entered around the temple, above it, perhaps right at or behind the harline.

The autopsy is questionable, they rushed him away from Dallas against Texas lawto let Doctors they could control, ie military perform the autopsy.Doctors who did see him at the hospital have told different stories.Then they "lost" his brain lol, that sure helps muddy the waters.This is classic disinformation crap, it apparently works on some people who smugly say "well I believe the government because you can't give me the exact evidence I want", the evidence that the government has hidden or destroyed.Even though there is a lot of evidence supporting multiple shooters, some continue to deny.Easier to live in the bubble I suppose..

[TarJak]

Originally Posted by Bubblehead1980

Look at the photos I posted, back and right side of his head wiped out, skin flap held on part of the skull, his hair looks "wet", it's from the blood and brain matter blown out by the bullet, if bullet entered from the back, it would be the front and side of his head blown out, not the back and right side.Bullet entered around the temple, above it, perhaps right at or behind the harline.

You've never heard of gravity have you? By the time those photos were taken, the body was lying on its back for several hours giving plenty of time for fluids from the wounds to matt the hair. It didn;t have to have come from the moment the wound occurred and probably didn't given he was shot in the back of the head.

What caused the entry wound in the back of his head? You keep ignoring evidence where it doesn't suit you.

The autopsy is questionable, they rushed him away from Dallas against Texas lawto let Doctors they could control, ie military perform the autopsy.Doctors who did see him at the hospital have told different stories.Then they "lost" his brain lol, that sure helps muddy the waters.This is classic disinformation crap, it apparently works on some people who smugly say "well I believe the government because you can't give me the exact evidence I want", the evidence that the government has hidden or destroyed.Even though there is a lot of evidence supporting multiple shooters, some continue to deny.Easier to live in the bubble I suppose..

You can't have it both ways. Either the evidence from the autopsy is rubbish or not, yet you use the photos to support your conspiracy theory.

In order to believe in a JFK conspiracy, we'd probably also have to believe that every member of the Warren Commission panel was up to no good, with all of these guys rigging the Warren Report to paint Lee Oswald as a sole assassin (and the lone killer of Dallas city policeman J.D. Tippit as well).

And in such a "conspiracy mindset", it would also almost assuredly mean that many, many members of the House Select Committee On Assassinations in the late 1970s were also no-good, lying SOBs too -- because that committee came to the same basic conclusion that the Warren boys did in 1964, when it came down to the question of: "How Many Bullets Struck the victims; With the answer being:
only 2 shots hit any of the victims in the President's limousine; & both of those bullets came from behind the vehicle. The physical evidence backs that up regardless of what you think you know.

[Mr Quatro]

Originally Posted by TarJak

In order to believe in a JFK conspiracy, we'd probably also have to believe that every member of the Warren Commission panel was up to no good, with all of these guys rigging the Warren Report to paint Lee Oswald as a sole assassin (and the lone killer of Dallas city policeman J.D. Tippit as well).

And in such a "conspiracy mindset", it would also almost assuredly mean that many, many members of the House Select Committee On Assassinations in the late 1970s were also no-good, lying SOBs too -- because that committee came to the same basic conclusion that the Warren boys did in 1964, when it came down to the question of: "How Many Bullets Struck the victims; With the answer being:
only 2 shots hit any of the victims in the President's limousine; & both of those bullets came from behind the vehicle. The physical evidence backs that up regardless of what you think you know.

Good points even bubblehead would have to yield to this wisdom. How many people would have to be in on the conspiracy in the last 50 years is mind boggling.

Someone would've left the truth in their will to be released upon their death by now, if there was a cover up that is.

I noticed that in all these years no one has included the "G" word on who to blame. The "G" word being God almighty of course.

Lets see now he and his brother (who was also assassinated) both shared the same woman Marilyn Monroe. That's called adultery with the reported fact of Marilyn calling the white house and informing Jackie that she was going to be the next first lady.

It has been reported that both JFK and Jackie used drugs while in the White House, not just little pills either. When someone told JFK this was wrong he responded with, "I don't care what it takes to get rid of this pain"

Did you know that as much as he deserved it that the president of South Vietnam had an order signed by President JFK to take him out (reads kill him) just two weeks before he himself was assassinated?

Did you know that Jack Ruby said right before he died that it was bigger than anything you can imagine, referring to why and how he killed Oswald?

I know many will think this was an organized crime connection due to Jack owning a strip club, but I think it had something to do with voices and voices can be deceiving with the person hearing them thinking it is God, but is really the devil.

Not to mention the Russian connection of Oswald visiting Russia, not to mention that Cuba has been our enemy ever since the Bay of Pigs ... through how many administration? Perhaps after Castro dies the state department will issue any hidden documents pertaining to that period of time.

Until then I would not discount the fact that God has in the past changed history and could very well be the one to blame, but then again how can you blame God for doing anything wrong?

[TarJak]

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

Showing nothing of the kind, unless you already see it that way. The wound itself shows no frontal entry or rear exit. The damage is all on the side. It has been shown by shooters here that the head can snap either way when hit, especially by a bullet that passes through.

That and the fact that the was an entry wound in the back of Kennedy's head.

[Betonov]

There was a Mythbusters episode, where they showed that the target knocks back with the same force the gun kicks back at the shooter. Not much since guns don't usually knock back shooters.

A front shot would not have knocked JFKs head back that much.

[Stealhead]

Originally Posted by Betonov

There was a Mythbusters episode, where they showed that the target knocks back with the same force the gun kicks back at the shooter. Not much since guns don't usually knock back shooters.

That is really just simple physics a person that never fired a gun in their life but that understood even basic physics would know that the recoil of a weapon is going to be equal (or roughly) to the bullets forward force.

Of course it seems that most people use Hollywood as a source for scientific fact and since in most films and TV shows the person gets blown across the room they assume that to be true.

With a living person or animal the reaction to a bullet strike can vary greatly depending on many factors.You can hit two deer in the heart with a .308 with the same rifle at the same range and they both will react differently drop differently or maybe they get of a few bounds before they expire and the other one does not you never know for sure.

[TarJak]

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

But the back is indeed intact. The damage is all on the right side.

And there's a 6mm entry wound in the back of his head.

[TarJak]

Originally Posted by mapuc

It is said that science isn't exact and this couldn't be more true.

Yesterday I saw on Danish TV the documentary, which TarJak have beent talking about in this thread-(watch it through my HDDm had it recorded)

After have watching this documentary I watch an another one
"Inside the assassination of JFK"

In the first documentary it was said that the bullet came from behind
In the next documentary the speaker said that the bullet came from the front
(the shot that hit him in the throat)

I could continue with all the differences that was between those two documentary.

I really really wonder IF it isn't in the USA's interest to find out who did it and why.

Today I even saw a documatery movie-Even here it was not the same is in the first two program I talked about.

Markus

The problem with documtaries that say the bullet came from the front is that they ignore the evidence of the entry wound in the back of Kennedy's head.