JFK: The Smoking Gun

RocknRollDave

Truth is JFK was felled by a planned explosion - the bullets were, of course, holograms.



or am I thinking of 9/11....?

Col_Decker

it wos the lizerds wert dun it

ICBM

PhilTQ said:

Do a search on James Files.
There is also a good documentary made by a dutch guy about the whole shooting. Basically it was a CIA/Mafia job to get rid of Kennedy who had severely hacked off both of them. There are interviews with ex CIA agents who piece together what happened.

According to Files Oswald was CIA and a scape goat, set up to take the blame and then murdered by Ruby (mafia) to cover it up. The shooters were supposed to be Charles Nicoletti (mafia and Files' boss) and John Rosselli (Mafia/CIA link). CIA wanted to cancel at the last minute and Rosselli refused to take part. Nicoletti had not been told to abort by his boss and asked Files to be back-up if he missed.

Files was behind the fence on the Grassy Knoll counting the shots. Nicoletti was in the Dal-Tex building across the road from the Book Depository and looking straight down the road.

Files fired at the last minute just before a sign obstructed his view and hit Kennedy in the head at the same time as Nicoletti hit the head. The Zapruder film shows Kennedys head move forward slightly as Nicoletti's shot hit him and is then pushed back as Files hits him. 

Utter nonsense.

If you watch the Zapruder film it's absolutely clear that the fatal shot came from behind because all the brain and blood ejected from his head (sorry, nasty description but it's the fact of the matter) is propelled forwards, even though the car was also accelerating at the time - which is why his head then fell backwards. Simple physics.

This also corresponds to the direction the bullet (ONE bullet) passed through his head - forwards and downwards - from the autopsy examination of his skull. The entry hole was on the back below the crown and the exit just above the right eye… that's impossible for any shot that didn't come from high above and behind.

That's why I got interested in all this - watching the Oliver Stone 'JFK', after you've been led through the whole conspiracy theory and are building up to the final conclusion, and then you get to see the proof in the Zapruder film, and… it shows the exact opposite. I've since watched it dozens of times at various speeds (which might sound a bit sick, I know) and there's absolutely no doubt - the bullet came from behind.

At least the accidental-shot-from-the-car-behind theory gets that right, even if nothing else - but *both* these non-Oswald theories can't be right, can they!

Just read the Bugliosi book, really. There's more research and detail in there than you could possibly believe if you haven't studied all the information that was collected at the time from witnesses, security men, police, doctors and just about anyone else even remotely involved - most of which doesn't seem to feature in any of the various conspiracy theories but which all points to only one conclusion.

maltingsaudio

This is what happened fact

RocknRollDave

:-O Is that real footage?!  :-O

TinLip

I went on Sunday.

After seeing the Zapruder film a hundred times and actually taking a look around myself, there is absolutely no way that the fatal shot came from behind. 

Pics to follow...

PhilTQ

If you watch the Zapruder film it's absolutely clear that the fatal shot came from behind because all the brain and blood ejected from his head (sorry, nasty description but it's the fact of the matter) is propelled forwards, even though the car was also accelerating at the time - which is why his head then fell backwards. Simple physics.

This also corresponds to the direction the bullet (ONE bullet) passed through his head - forwards and downwards - from the autopsy examination of his skull. The entry hole was on the back below the crown and the exit just above the right eye… that's impossible for any shot that didn't come from high above and behind.

Files says that he was aiming at Kennedy's right eye and as he fired the head moved forward slightly and he hit him above the right temple which pushed his head back again. You can also see this in the film and the single bullet from the back  does not explain the rearwards movement.

There was no hard acceleration of the car (which the film also shows) until after he was dead. It is also strange that the 2 security that were supposed to have been riding on the rear were waved away as the motorcade was leaving the airport!

The accidental shooting suggestion doesn't work for me for several reasons. Firstly you have a guy who is firearms trained (hopefully) pointing an assault rifle towards the occupants of his own car and accidentally pulling the trigger when he hears shots from behind? Look at the photos the guy has it pointing upwards. Secondly what about the line of fire from him to Kennedy? His own windscreen not going to get in the way? And if he accidentally pulls the trigger as the car accelerates forward that gun is coming up so it must have been pointing at his own driver when he takes the safety off and his finger goes on the trigger. Some weapons training that is. Lastly what is the effect of a shot from an assault rifle at close range? Would have taken Kenedy's head off I would have thought.

Re the shooting of the Police Officer, Files said that after dropping off Nicoletti and Rosselli he drove to the motel he was staying at in Mesquite. A while later there was a knock on the door and there was a guy there that he knew who said he had had to kill a policeman and was looking for somewhere to go. Files said not here and the guy left. Files thinks that he was actually the guy sent to kill Oswald and had panicked when confronted by the Policeman.

Files also said that he had raised his concern about what Oswald knew as Oswald had shown him around Dallas and gone out to some waste land with Files to zero the sights on the guns, picking the empty cases. Files mentioned it to David Attlee Phillips who was Files' controller and was told not to worry.

Interesting that a parafin test was done on Oswald to find any trace of cordite residue and only a small trace was found on his hands (from picking up the empty cases) Whereas had he fired the shots his face and hands would almost certainly have shown residue.

Emp_Fab

Hmmm....  If you completely ignore all the actual evidence and just go on 'most probable scenario', it has to be, for me, the CIA rather than a lone nutter who continually protested his innocence.  The underhand shit that has gone on in US intelligence marks them as having motive, opportunity and ability to pull this off.

Funny how the Oswald ended up dead before he had any chance to speak isn't it ?

Way too many coincidences and all of them in favour of a cover-up.

ICBM

Just read Reclaiming History.

Seriously.

It will open your eyes on all this crap.

The full autopsy report on JFK's injuries is in there. No bullet hit his head from the front.

I had already wasted far too much of my life on this before I did, and it's probably time to stop now...

Emp_Fab

It's going to take more than a single source to change my opinion.

Philly_Q

I read and watched quite a lot about the JFK assassination years ago, and must admit I've forgotten most of the details.

But my overriding impression was that it's a bit like trying to find out who really was Jack the Ripper (or even, in a weird way, trying to buy an English translation of the Koran) - whichever version you read, the author slants it to support his own personal view.

We'll never really know the truth.

ICBM

Emp_Fab said:

It's going to take more than a single source to change my opinion.

Go and read the book and then get back to me .

It's so far from a single source you would not believe it. The level of research and access to original documentation is staggering. The list of references and sources alone is about half as big as the book.

I am not Vincent Bugliosi's publisher by the way .

But really, if you have any serious interest in this, read it.

boogieman

I can't see how anyone could get an accurate shot with a handgun, even a long barrelled one. That degree of accuracy had to come from a rifle.

axisus

The Howard Donahue version has been pretty much pulled apart from what I read a while back.

I still think it was Marilyn Monroe. She had the motive and everything.

PhilTQ

boogieman said:

I can't see how anyone could get an accurate shot with a handgun, even a long barrelled one. That degree of accuracy had to come from a rifle.

Take a look at the Remington XP100 Fireball. Good videos on You Tube. Files said he had an early one that came from Atlee Philips and was a .222. The distance isn't that great and he said with a scope it was like he was 6ft away. Very little recoil.

not_the_dj

Philly_Q said:

I read and watched quite a lot about the JFK assassination years ago, and must admit I've forgotten most of the details.

But my overriding impression was that it's a bit like trying to find out who really was Jack the Ripper (or even, in a weird way, trying to buy an English translation of the Koran) - whichever version you read, the author slants it to support his own personal view.

We'll never really know the truth.

Next week....Jack the Ripper was.........The Loch Ness Monster ;-)