The Coup D'etat of November 1963

He got hit in the throat from behind.
The back brace and bindings he wore stopped the ability to fall forwards once hit.
Those also stopped forwards movement when the head shot came in.
You can see the total effects in the clips!

[August]

Originally Posted by privateer

He got hit in the throat from behind.
The back brace and bindings he wore stopped the ability to fall forwards once hit.
Those also stopped forwards movement when the head shot came in.
You can see the total effects in the clips!

I forgot about his back injury. Those braces would explain a lot of things.

Originally Posted by August

I forgot about his back injury. Those braces would explain a lot of things.

Ya. Crazy stuff eh?
You can see he can not fall forwards as he comes out from behind the sign where the throat shot came in.
You see a slight lean towards the left as the head shot comes in.
Then a slight move forwards as the round hits the back of the head.
The brace and bindings again stop forward movement and help with the rearward thrust from the rounds pressure on exiting the forward side of the head.

As for the other Guy not dropping his hat?
Sever or paralize the wrist muscles or tendons from a shock impact of that sort?
You wouldn't be able to control the reactions in such a short time frame.

[Bubblehead1980]

Originally Posted by privateer

He got hit in the throat from behind.
The back brace and bindings he wore stopped the ability to fall forwards once hit.
Those also stopped forwards movement when the head shot came in.
You can see the total effects in the clips!

Okay but he did not fall forward because as can see in zapruder film, he goes back do to the frontal/side impact.Really, if it were just the film suggesting this, okay but 50 or so witnesses reported shots from the grassy knoll, to the side and front of the car, where the likely head shot actually came from, which caused him to snap back from the impact, which blew the right front side and back of his head out as seen.Really, if it were just the video and one or two people saying shots came from other locations okay, but 50 or so.A Dallas Police Officer reported seeing a man fleeing scene of grassy knoll, who produced Secret Service Credentials, he let him go, turns out the man was not SS as all SS agents were accounted for and none were involved in the encounter.The visual, ballistic, physical evidence combined with the witnesses, loose ends, etc screams mulitple shoots, aka a conspiracy.There are many loose ends, too many, where there is smoke, there is fire.

Blood spatter can not lie.
The stuff flies out of the forwards part of the skull.
Remind me never to have you as my Liar (I mean Lawyer).

[Bubblehead1980]

Originally Posted by privateer

Blood spatter can not lie.
The stuff flies out of the forwards part of the skull.
Remind me never to have you as my Liar (I mean Lawyer).

Insult me all you want, shows you have doubts, resorting to that.Blood spatter can lie, there are cases where it has been "misinterpreted" by the so called "experts" , lead to wrong conclusions. The Zapruder film clearly shows the right side, sort of to the front, just behind the temple and back of his head blow out as he snaps back from the frontal impact.Doctor at Parkland Hospital said it looked like a bullet hit him from front, exited the side/rear of the skull, blowing it away. The so called "entrance wound" in the back of his head in some photos, there are claims these were altered to fit the story, I find it possible considering it conflicts with all other evidence.

Also, why did oswald not just shoot him when he was on Houston street when had a clear shot from front to the head? had a better shot there, they waited until Kennedy was in position where for triangulation of crossfire.This is like arguing with my father, we got into it yesterday about this, he believes in the lone nut, even with pretty clear evidence, refuses to accept kennedy was victim of a conspiracy because like many, just too hard to accept and since there is no one doing a cartwheel in the street saying I did it, I did it, they by default trust the government.Trusting the government by default is a dangerous thing, obamacare being a great recent example.

I have seen all the stuff you have.
I have also seen first hand, shots just like that.
81 meters to hit a head in a slow moveing Car?
I take shots like that with Air Rifles on running critters and drop them.


It's also easier to shoot someone in the back of the head.
They ain't looking at you that way.
Unless you've done it? You'll never really understand that part of it.
It's the eyes that get you. They never go away.

It could have been a plot. Don't know the answer to that.
But the shots came from behind. That I have NO doubts about.

[sharkbit]

Originally Posted by Bubblehead1980

Okay but he did not fall forward because as can see in zapruder film, he goes back do to the frontal/side impact.Really, if it were just the film suggesting this, okay but 50 or so witnesses reported shots from the grassy knoll, to the side and front of the car, where the likely head shot actually came from, which caused him to snap back from the impact, which blew the right front side and back of his head out as seen.Really, if it were just the video and one or two people saying shots came from other locations okay, but 50 or so.A Dallas Police Officer reported seeing a man fleeing scene of grassy knoll, who produced Secret Service Credentials, he let him go, turns out the man was not SS as all SS agents were accounted for and none were involved in the encounter.The visual, ballistic, physical evidence combined with the witnesses, loose ends, etc screams mulitple shoots, aka a conspiracy.There are many loose ends, too many, where there is smoke, there is fire.

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

Expert on ballistic forensics explains how his head can snap back from a bullet impact in the [B]back[B] of his head, a bullet fired by Oswald. Some interesting testimony on how bodies can act when shot.

Then the autopsy picture of the back of Kennedy's head doesn't show it blown out. Only the entry wound.

[mapuc]

Originally Posted by sharkbit

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

Expert on ballistic forensics explains how his head can snap back from a bullet impact in the [B]back[B] of his head, a bullet fired by Oswald. Some interesting testimony on how bodies can act when shot.

Then the autopsy picture of the back of Kennedy's head doesn't show it blown out. Only the entry wound.

First of all I'm not any kind of expert on ballistics forensiscs

I have seen a couple of documentary in which such an expert says this and in an another says so

So who's right???

Markus

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by Bubblehead1980

but 50 or so witnesses reported shots from the grassy knoll, to the side and front of the car, where the likely head shot actually came from, which caused him to snap back from the impact, which blew the right front side and back of his head out as seen.

It's already been shown that many of those witnesses also told tall tales about other things, and many more of them disagree on different points, yet you keep repeating that same vague charge over and over, without ever showing the actual testimony.

A Dallas Police Officer reported seeing a man fleeing scene of grassy knoll, who produced Secret Service Credentials, he let him go, turns out the man was not SS as all SS agents were accounted for and none were involved in the encounter.

And there were several agents of different kinds in the area, including military intelligence. While most of them have been discounted as the mysterious 'SS' agent, why did not one of them notice anyone shooting from a position very close to theirs?

The visual, ballistic, physical evidence combined with the witnesses, loose ends, etc screams mulitple shoots, aka a conspiracy.There are many loose ends, too many, where there is smoke, there is fire.

So you keep saying, but every single point you've tried to make can be shown to have other explanations, equally valid if not more so.

Originally Posted by Bubblehead1980

Insult me all you want, shows you have doubts, resorting to that.

It shows that he's grown tired of hearing the same claims over and over, and willful ignorance of other equal explanations. I wouldn't be surprised if he has doubts. I have doubts. It's been my long experience that it is the person who has no doubts who is usually wrong.

As far as insults go, you insult anyone who argues against you several times with your "lol"s and similar snide comments. The only difference is you manage to make it general, so everybody deserves laughing at in your book, not just one person. You also do this on a regular basis, in pretty much every political post you make.

The Zapruder film clearly shows the right side, sort of to the front, just behind the temple and back of his head blow out as he snaps back from the frontal impact.

It does show his head snap backward. It has been explained many times that it is a possible reaction for a body part to move in the direction from which it was hit. The film shows spray flying forward, and in no other direction. It does not show the temple or back of the head blown out.

Doctor at Parkland Hospital said it looked like a bullet hit him from front, exited the side/rear of the skull, blowing it away. The so called "entrance wound" in the back of his head in some photos, there are claims these were altered to fit the story, I find it possible considering it conflicts with all other evidence.

One thing the photo is clear about: the back of his head is intact; there is no "blowing out". That is all on the right side. You have changed your story on this several times, and yet managed to not address anything anyone has said.

Also, why did oswald not just shoot him when he was on Houston street when had a clear shot from front to the head? had a better shot there, they waited until Kennedy was in position where for triangulation of crossfire.

Perhaps because, as someone pointed out earlier, he was eating lunch and barely made it back in time.

This is like arguing with my father, we got into it yesterday about this, he believes in the lone nut, even with pretty clear evidence, refuses to accept kennedy was victim of a conspiracy because like many, just too hard to accept

That's pretty damned insulting to your father. Is he immune because he's not a Subsim member?

and since there is no one doing a cartwheel in the street saying I did it, I did it, they by default trust the government.

"cartwheel in the street"? There's no direct evidence at all. Everything you claim is built on everything else you claim. I've said many times that if you can provide one piece of evidence that stands alone, with no "ifs" or "maybes" then I'll listen. But so far you haven't.

Trusting the government by default is a dangerous thing, obamacare being a great recent example.

So now you presume to lecture everybody? And again you can't leave your pet hate out of it.

I'll wager that there is not one person here who trusts their government at all, let alone "by default". You keep trying to lump a group of intelligent, thoughtful and resourceful people into a category of "trusting", when we've shown you otherwise many times. Anyone who does not agree with you or shows you to be wrong is blindly trusting the government.

And you talk about other people insulting you.

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by mapuc

First of all I'm not any kind of expert on ballistics forensiscs

I have seen a couple of documentary in which such an expert says this and in an another says so

So who's right???

Markus

We don't know. It could be either. I just grew tired decades ago of being told I have to believe one or the other with no concrete proof either way, or else I'm a stupid person who is a sucker for the official party line.

You see, the people here aren't trying to prove that Bubblehead is wrong for looking at that possibility, just that he's wrong for accepting blindly and then claiming that his "detractors" are doing the same and insisting that we're all dupes.

[TarJak]

Originally Posted by Bubblehead1980

Insult me all you want, shows you have doubts, resorting to that.Blood spatter can lie, there are cases where it has been "misinterpreted" by the so called "experts" , lead to wrong conclusions. The Zapruder film clearly shows the right side, sort of to the front, just behind the temple and back of his head blow out as he snaps back from the frontal impact.Doctor at Parkland Hospital said it looked like a bullet hit him from front, exited the side/rear of the skull, blowing it away. The so called "entrance wound" in the back of his head in some photos, there are claims these were altered to fit the story, I find it possible considering it conflicts with all other evidence.

Also, why did oswald not just shoot him when he was on Houston street when had a clear shot from front to the head? had a better shot there, they waited until Kennedy was in position where for triangulation of crossfire.This is like arguing with my father, we got into it yesterday about this, he believes in the lone nut, even with pretty clear evidence, refuses to accept kennedy was victim of a conspiracy because like many, just too hard to accept and since there is no one doing a cartwheel in the street saying I did it, I did it, they by default trust the government.Trusting the government by default is a dangerous thing, obamacare being a great recent example.

And as predicted you resort to saying that the key evidence that disproves your theory was falsified or other wise altered. Have you read the autopsy reports? Seen the interviews of the doctors who examined the body? All state categorically that there was an entry wound in the back of his head and further that the large exit wound was chiefly parietal, ( above and forward of the right ear).

What did the parkland doctors really say?
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/faceup.htm

What is strange is the different behaviour of the two rounds. One which can be traced back to Oswalds rifle went through two bodies pretty much in one piece. This is the way the ammunition Oswald was using was designed to behave. A military round for causing maximum damage to as many of the enemy as possible by passing through the target and hitting additional targets beyond.

The other behaved very differently with multiple small fragments being left inside the front of Kennedy's skull. This is consistent with the frangible round being used by the Secret Service. This type of ammunition is designed to take down the target and not cause collateral casualties because it was likely to be used in a crowded environment where collateral damage was undesirable.

The shots heard from the grassy knoll can be explained by the echoes of the shots from a behind. Dealy Plaza is surrounded by hard surfaces which do echo. There is also no physical evidence of a gun, round or entry wound consistent with a frontal shot. As you've admitted the Zapruder film is inconclusive on the frontal shot but quite consistent with the two known rear shots that hit the president.

The last part of your post is incomprehensible. Obama care has nothing to do with something that happened 50 years ago.

[mapuc]

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

We don't know. It could be either. I just grew tired decades ago of being told I have to believe one or the other with no concrete proof either way, or else I'm a stupid person who is a sucker for the official party line.

You see, the people here aren't trying to prove that Bubblehead is wrong for looking at that possibility, just that he's wrong for accepting blindly and then claiming that his "detractors" are doing the same and insisting that we're all dupes.

you are right in every word.

[TarJak]

Originally Posted by mapuc

you are right in every word.

QFT.

A little 'habit' many Combat Troopers had?
Hold on to a few live rounds and 'mod' them into frangible rounds.
The first rounds of standard ammo are your rangeing and POI rounds.
Then you send the 'modded' round for maximum damage to the intended target.

Oswald never had a chance to say anything so it makes as much sense as anything else I've read.