Jefferies JFK film

First.

The shot to Kennedy's back was CLEARLY an entrance would and the trach an exit.

Second, where is the bullet damage to Kennedy's forehead if he was shot from in front? That's right, there was none.

Grown-up table?

Not yet, kiddo.

 

He only needed to fire two shots in 5.6 seconds. It's not like a raqce, when the gun goes off and the runner starts. In this case, the clock doesn't start until the first shot is fired. Another shot at 2.8 and the third at 5.6 is quite believable. Target was not moving very fast at all (10 MPH is 50 percent slower than a runner on a 4-minute pace), and one shot missed, so he didn't have three dead-on shots.

I've never been to the sixth floor museum in the TSD. People who have tell me they are shocked at how close it is to the killing zone, that you are practically right on top of it, and that the movies and photos of Dealy Plaza don't give a true perspective of how close Oswald actually was.

 

Since neither of us was there at Parkland, Simon, I guess we can't know for sure.
But reports of all the people in the hospital room that final hour, and reports of the significantly flawed autopsy, lead me to believe what I believe.
You stay at the grown-up table and believe what you want.

 

I'm not defending the Warren Commission at all, fwiw; they were far more interested in covering up (ultimately irrelevant) dirty government deeds than they were in producing an airtight case. I just believe that LHO acted alone, even if he met with some weird folks along the way.

I forget who it was (I think it was Geirge Will), who walked back the Franz Ferdinand assassination and painted it as a huge conspiracy just to make the point that with hindsight, every little happening/coincidence can be made to look more ominous and conspiracy-supporting than it really was.

And I thought I read that the only interesting thing out of this new footage was that JFK's jacket was bunched up near his neck in such a way that it lent even more credence to the single-bullet theory.

 

The Ferdinand motorcade took a wrong turn and ended up at the end of a one-way street, having to slow down or stop and do a U-turn.
He'd gone to Sarajevo to introduce himself to his new subjects, having just taken over that sprawl of land and declaring himself these folks' new leader.
Lots were there that day who hated all he stood for.

 

Hear, hear. There are so many things that occurred before, during and after the assassination that make it quite plausible to support a conspiracy theory. To outright dismiss it as the thinking of the lunatic fringe and to wholly believe without question that Lee Harvey did it alone is really a shame and a disservice to our nation's history. (Perhaps, especially so, on a site for journalists, where uncovering and reporting the truth is part of the job?)

Just a couple points on some of the comments above:

From everything I had read, Oswald scored below average in marksmanship while in the Marines. I don't think he was the sure shot being made out here

The Jennings piece on A&E is hardly constructed from an impartial stance designed to consider all information and data and end up with a conclusion this data supports. Rather, it's clear intent is to support the single assassin and Warren Commission, and it does so by ignoring all the potential countering information and ends up being a propaganda piece.

And Oswald's motive was mentioned--what about Ruby's? And no need to factor in his Mob affiliation, I'm sure.

For those who think the conspiracy talk is a lot of bunk, I'd offer up "High Treason" by Groden and Livingston for your consideration. It's not what i would consider to be a well organized book, but there's plenty in there that at least ought to give you cause for pause.

 

There has to be a way to blame Hilary Clinton for this, isn't there?

 

One of the explanations I've read for the reason JFK's head reacted the way he did was because he was wearing a stiff back brace which prevented him from slumping too far forward.

 

Stay tuned for more. Upcoming on The History Channel:

Tuesday March 20
11 a.m. and 5 p.m. (don't know if that's Eastern or Central...check your local listings, as they say).

How does forensic science help resolve questions about the JFK assassination? With the help of a group of scientists and researchers with access to the evidence in the case, Investigating History looks at new information that examines which theories are believable, and which are not. Specifically, the experts looked at the acoustic evidence from the radio of one of the motorcycle policemen in the motorcade and the number of shots that were fired; at the reliability of autopsy X-rays of JFK's skull; at the investigation that concluded that Oswald was the lone assassin; at the new evidentiary support for the "magic bullet" theory; and more.
Rating: TVPG
Running Time: 60 minutes
Genre:Mysteries of History

Not sure if this is the same A&E version repeated or not. There was something about that documentary that I thought was odd....the timing of the shots or something involved with that demonstration. I really don't remember the specifics, just that I was skeptical that they were going conclusion back to cause to get the answer they wanted.

 

Technically, neither is hit behind the sign.

At frame 226, both are hit.

You are ridiculous if your lying eyes tell you differently.

 

With all due respect, I find that argument a little daffy.
We know certain things absolutely:1) that the WC was not designed to find the truth wherever it led, but to assuage the country and to pin the blame on one man; 2) that its membership included at least two career spooks with blatant conflicts-of-interest, 3) that a whole rat's nest of documents about Oswald, Ruby, the mob, and a number of other ops were withheld from the WC, and 4) that the magic-bullet theory was developed in order to make the commission's presumption of a single gunman jibe with the visual evidence of the Zapruder film. None of that's in dispute. Given those facts, I can't then accept that this deliberately hamstrung investigation came to the correct conclusions by stumbling into them.