Even the government itself admitted in the 70's there was a conspiracy to kill JFK.

[7forever]

You are ignoring the eyewitnesses and the back of the head gaped open in frame 313. No exit wound existed on jfk's face.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Iws6EBfMPA8]The Beverly Hillbillies The Clampetts Get Culture - Season 2 Episode: 049 - YouTube[/ame]



Sent from my NWO shill phone using TapYourLine II.

Yes, he did say he saw the fatal shot. Yes, he knew Greer shot jfk and took it to his grave.

Who else could Connally have seen shoot jfk besides the driver? He was looking at Greer when the shot was fired.

Connally said he saw the fatal shot and quickly corrected himself but his reaction when looking at Greer proves he slipped up. Watch him hit the floor in horror once he realized Greer shot JFK. The Governor, logically starting turning toward the driver because he was braking before he shot the President.

Obviously, at least the major wound that I took in the shoulder through the chest couldn't have been anything but the second shot. Obviously, it couldn't have been the third, because when the third shot was fired I was in a reclining position, and heard it, saw it and the effects of it, rather--I didn't see it, I saw the effects of it--so it obviously could not have been the third, and couldn't have been the first, in my judgment.

So I merely doubled up, and then turned to my right again and began to--I just sat there, and Mrs. Connally pulled me over to her lap. She was sitting, of course, on the jump seat, so I reclined with my head in her lap, conscious all the time, and with my eyes open; and then, of course, the third shot sounded, and I heard the shot very clearly. I heard it hit him. I heard the shot hit something, and I assumed again--it never entered my mind that it ever hit anybody but the President. I heard it hit. It was a very loud noise, just that audible, very clear.

GREER FIRED RIGHT OVER CONNALLY'S HEAD and when he realized Greer fired it, he hit the floor, terrified. WATCH THE GOVERNOR.

 

[Rockland]

Beverly Hillbillies Commercial For Winston Cigarettes - Funny - YouTube

The hole was an exit wound and you are debunked.

One does not "debunk" Granny and Jed. It has been proven. You lose.

 

[Bfgrn]

Now Salon opinion pieces are being injected really rich.

Any way, here is the HSCA take on the autopsy photos and X-rays that confirm a shot from the rear. Remember the HSCA determined a conspiracy, on false information, so they were not shy about calling out the evidence. Everything else is just what people think they remember of what they saw for moments in a very agitated state. People always scream about using science to determine stuff instead of opinion, such in the global warming debate. But in this case the science of the autopsy is thrown out.

here is the HSCA evaluation of the x-ray evidence that clears up the many various "opinions" of where the head was damaged. It also evaluates if the x-rays were faked.

HSCA Report on photos and x-ray

(162) As mentioned, the committee did, however, subject the
autopsy photographs and X-rays to scientific analysis. These
examinations by the committee's consultants established the
inaccuracy of the Parkland observations. The experts concluded
that the autopsy photographs and X-rays were authentic and
unaltered, confirming the observations of the autopsy personnel
and providing additional support for the conclusions of the
medical consultants.

(610) To summarize, the skull and torso radiographs taken at
autopsy match the available ante mortem films of the President in
such a wealth of intricate morphological detail that there can be no
reasonable doubt that they are in fact X-rays of John F. Kennedy, and
no other person.

Questioning David Talbot, the founder of Salon is 'rich' especially someone who takes John Adams as a reasonable person.

The Warren Commission was not and investigation, it was a purely political parade for J Edgar Hoover's story for public consumption. It was strictly for show, and to keep Congress off the trail. If Congress had run full blown investigations into the assassination, government would have ground to a halt. None of the Great Society would have gotten off the ground and what the FBI and the CIA knew about Mexico City would have blown the lid off any sole assassin theory. The Warren Commission depended solely on the FBI and Hoover for evidence. Hoover and LBJ already decided that the American people and the world MUST be convinced that Oswald was the lone assassin and there were no killers still at large. If you spend some time listening to LBJ and Hoover phone conversations and reading Hoover's memos the verdict was CLEAR. LBJ knew about the Mexico City incident where Oswald and a person impersonating Oswald visited the Russian Embassy a month before the assassination and tried to contact a Russian assassin. Johnson had to convince the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court to serve on the panel. LBJ had Earl Warren in tears when he painted a picture of a nuclear holocaust if any of the Mexico City details became public.

Have you ever thought about the FACT that there was ZERO chance the US government would present any other story than Oswald was the lone assassin, he was deceased and there were no murderers still at large?

J. Edgar Hoover memorandum to Lyndon B. Johnson seven days after Kennedy had been assassinated

I don't usually quote McAdams even though I do use stuff from his site because it is easy to find the information.

I did question the government's "story." And yes I doubted it but since then the evidence is overwhelming that the conclusion that Oswald alone fired the shots. I provided links to three separate investigations that claimed all the shots came from the rear. The HSCA came to the conclusion of conspiracy based solely on Dictaphone evidence that since has been shown faulty.

So yes, blogs and those making money from JFK keep the rumor mill going but in the end the Warren Commission was largely correct.

You can try to dismiss hard evidence and men that did painstaking research into the assassination as 'blogs' and such. But McAdams is probably the most bias 'blogger' in the crowd.

OK...so you have Lee Harvey Oswald as the lone assassin...a lone nut who shot the President.

Alright...you are Lee Harvey Oswald...you lived 8804 days on earth. For all but 2 DAYS of your life you are an absolute NOBODY.

So PLEASE explain why someone would go to the trouble of impersonating this absolute NOBODY in Mexico City two months before the assassination?

I tried to give you some key evidence that would create some doubt in your allegiance to the Warren Commission's findings.

If you had listened to any of the LBJ - J Edgar Hoover telephone conversations, you would have found out there was strong evidence Oswald was set up:

Less than 24 hours after the assassination of President Kennedy, FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover reported to the new President Johnson on the state of the investigation. Noting that the evidence against [Oswald] is "not very very strong", Hoover reported on the tracing of the rifle to an alias of Oswald and other details implicating him in the shooting.

But when LBJ then asked "Have you established any more about the visit to the Soviet Embassy in Mexico in September," an event of no little interest to the inner circles of government, Hoover replied "No, that's one angle that's very confusing for this reason. We have up here the tape and the photograph of the man who was at the Soviet Embassy, using Oswald's name. The picture and the tape do not correspond to this man's voice, nor to his appearance. In other words, it appears that there is a second person who was at the Soviet Embassy down there." In other words, an imposter had implicated Oswald in a relationship with Soviet agents, less than two months before the assassination.
History Matters Archive - LBJ-Hoover 11-23-63

 

[Freewill]

Ok, then, where are we now? Do we agree that there was one gunman as did all the other government studies with the exception of the HSCA which arrived at a conspiracy due to faulty expert testimony?

We have moved to the motive of Oswald?

First of all we can't know why Oswald went to Mexico city we just have some evidence that he did.

We can't know why there was an impostor, we just have some evidence that there may have been.

As with all things let's go with what we know. Oswald was not exactly an unknown person. There is more then one set of videos showing him in news reports spouting his pro-Cuba stance. So anyone in those paranoid days would have taken notice o Oswald. Being pro-Cuban would naturally mean he would want to visit Cuba, couldn't do that from American so going to Mexico to obtain a visa would be the next best thing and it really isn't that far from Dallas/Texas.

Who was the impersonator? That is a very, very good question. But let's say this. I don't think that the Russians are that stupid to not know that the CIA watches their embassies as they do ours. So to have Oswald come to the embassy pretty much uncovered doesn't seem to make sense. And to then have someone impersonate him really makes no sense and I don't see what would be the advantage of doing so.

As for the CIA lying and not sharing information? Yoo hoo that is what they do. They are perhaps the biggest dispenser of false flags and disinformation in the world. For the obvious reason to protect sources and methods. 9/11 becomes the next example of something bad happening because the CIA doesn't play nice with other agencies in the government.

That all said, do you really think that the Russians would risk nuclear war with the assignation attempt and do it so crudely as to implicate themselves?

Which is not to say there wasn't a conspiracy, it just doesn't ring true that the Russians would try such a stunt. I might also point no investigation has pointed to the Russians. Even the HSCA didn't think the Russians were in on it.

BTW from the link you provided: The quotes given above are taken from a transcript of the conversation made contemporaneously in 1963. The tape itself appears to have been erased at some time since then. The accompanying audio consists of 14 minutes of noisy silence. See "The Fourteen Minute Gap" essay for more information.

So sad that it seems like so much of the "evidence" is lost.

 

[dcraelin]

Questioning David Talbot, the founder of Salon is 'rich' especially someone who takes John Adams as a reasonable person.

The Warren Commission was not and investigation, it was a purely political parade for J Edgar Hoover's story for public consumption. It was strictly for show, and to keep Congress off the trail. If Congress had run full blown investigations into the assassination, government would have ground to a halt. None of the Great Society would have gotten off the ground and what the FBI and the CIA knew about Mexico City would have blown the lid off any sole assassin theory. The Warren Commission depended solely on the FBI and Hoover for evidence. Hoover and LBJ already decided that the American people and the world MUST be convinced that Oswald was the lone assassin and there were no killers still at large. If you spend some time listening to LBJ and Hoover phone conversations and reading Hoover's memos the verdict was CLEAR. LBJ knew about the Mexico City incident where Oswald and a person impersonating Oswald visited the Russian Embassy a month before the assassination and tried to contact a Russian assassin. Johnson had to convince the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court to serve on the panel. LBJ had Earl Warren in tears when he painted a picture of a nuclear holocaust if any of the Mexico City details became public.

Have you ever thought about the FACT that there was ZERO chance the US government would present any other story than Oswald was the lone assassin, he was deceased and there were no murderers still at large?

J. Edgar Hoover memorandum to Lyndon B. Johnson seven days after Kennedy had been assassinated

I don't usually quote McAdams even though I do use stuff from his site because it is easy to find the information.

I did question the government's "story." And yes I doubted it but since then the evidence is overwhelming that the conclusion that Oswald alone fired the shots. I provided links to three separate investigations that claimed all the shots came from the rear. The HSCA came to the conclusion of conspiracy based solely on Dictaphone evidence that since has been shown faulty.

So yes, blogs and those making money from JFK keep the rumor mill going but in the end the Warren Commission was largely correct.

You can try to dismiss hard evidence and men that did painstaking research into the assassination as 'blogs' and such. But McAdams is probably the most bias 'blogger' in the crowd.

OK...so you have Lee Harvey Oswald as the lone assassin...a lone nut who shot the President.

Alright...you are Lee Harvey Oswald...you lived 8804 days on earth. For all but 2 DAYS of your life you are an absolute NOBODY.

So PLEASE explain why someone would go to the trouble of impersonating this absolute NOBODY in Mexico City two months before the assassination?

I tried to give you some key evidence that would create some doubt in your allegiance to the Warren Commission's findings.

If you had listened to any of the LBJ - J Edgar Hoover telephone conversations, you would have found out there was strong evidence Oswald was set up:

Less than 24 hours after the assassination of President Kennedy, FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover reported to the new President Johnson on the state of the investigation. Noting that the evidence against [Oswald] is "not very very strong", Hoover reported on the tracing of the rifle to an alias of Oswald and other details implicating him in the shooting.

But when LBJ then asked "Have you established any more about the visit to the Soviet Embassy in Mexico in September," an event of no little interest to the inner circles of government, Hoover replied "No, that's one angle that's very confusing for this reason. We have up here the tape and the photograph of the man who was at the Soviet Embassy, using Oswald's name. The picture and the tape do not correspond to this man's voice, nor to his appearance. In other words, it appears that there is a second person who was at the Soviet Embassy down there." In other words, an imposter had implicated Oswald in a relationship with Soviet agents, less than two months before the assassination.
History Matters Archive - LBJ-Hoover 11-23-63

implicating the USSR in the thing seems to be could be a motive of a group like the JohnBirchSociety who were organized around anti-communist ideals I believe.

This would mean the general Walker attempt was a faked assassination attempt to draw sympathy for Walker.

This makes more sense then the Posner/Bugliosi idea that Oswald would want to kill both Kennedy and his ideological opposite in Walker.

 

[Bfgrn]

Ok, then, where are we now? Do we agree that there was one gunman as did all the other government studies with the exception of the HSCA which arrived at a conspiracy due to faulty expert testimony?

We have moved to the motive of Oswald?

First of all we can't know why Oswald went to Mexico city we just have some evidence that he did.

We can't know why there was an impostor, we just have some evidence that there may have been.

As with all things let's go with what we know. Oswald was not exactly an unknown person. There is more then one set of videos showing him in news reports spouting his pro-Cuba stance. So anyone in those paranoid days would have taken notice o Oswald. Being pro-Cuban would naturally mean he would want to visit Cuba, couldn't do that from American so going to Mexico to obtain a visa would be the next best thing and it really isn't that far from Dallas/Texas.

Who was the impersonator? That is a very, very good question. But let's say this. I don't think that the Russians are that stupid to not know that the CIA watches their embassies as they do ours. So to have Oswald come to the embassy pretty much uncovered doesn't seem to make sense. And to then have someone impersonate him really makes no sense and I don't see what would be the advantage of doing so.

As for the CIA lying and not sharing information? Yoo hoo that is what they do. They are perhaps the biggest dispenser of false flags and disinformation in the world. For the obvious reason to protect sources and methods. 9/11 becomes the next example of something bad happening because the CIA doesn't play nice with other agencies in the government.

That all said, do you really think that the Russians would risk nuclear war with the assignation attempt and do it so crudely as to implicate themselves?

Which is not to say there wasn't a conspiracy, it just doesn't ring true that the Russians would try such a stunt. I might also point no investigation has pointed to the Russians. Even the HSCA didn't think the Russians were in on it.

BTW from the link you provided: The quotes given above are taken from a transcript of the conversation made contemporaneously in 1963. The tape itself appears to have been erased at some time since then. The accompanying audio consists of 14 minutes of noisy silence. See "The Fourteen Minute Gap" essay for more information.

So sad that it seems like so much of the "evidence" is lost.

You have it backwards. There was no 'stunt' by the Russians, they had nothing to do with it. The imposter contacted the Soviet embassy posing as Oswald to implicate Russia.

History Matters - The Framing of Oswald

 

[LA RAM FAN]

I don't usually quote McAdams even though I do use stuff from his site because it is easy to find the information.

I did question the government's "story." And yes I doubted it but since then the evidence is overwhelming that the conclusion that Oswald alone fired the shots. I provided links to three separate investigations that claimed all the shots came from the rear. The HSCA came to the conclusion of conspiracy based solely on Dictaphone evidence that since has been shown faulty.

So yes, blogs and those making money from JFK keep the rumor mill going but in the end the Warren Commission was largely correct.

You can try to dismiss hard evidence and men that did painstaking research into the assassination as 'blogs' and such. But McAdams is probably the most bias 'blogger' in the crowd.

OK...so you have Lee Harvey Oswald as the lone assassin...a lone nut who shot the President.

Alright...you are Lee Harvey Oswald...you lived 8804 days on earth. For all but 2 DAYS of your life you are an absolute NOBODY.

So PLEASE explain why someone would go to the trouble of impersonating this absolute NOBODY in Mexico City two months before the assassination?

I tried to give you some key evidence that would create some doubt in your allegiance to the Warren Commission's findings.

If you had listened to any of the LBJ - J Edgar Hoover telephone conversations, you would have found out there was strong evidence Oswald was set up:

Less than 24 hours after the assassination of President Kennedy, FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover reported to the new President Johnson on the state of the investigation. Noting that the evidence against [Oswald] is "not very very strong", Hoover reported on the tracing of the rifle to an alias of Oswald and other details implicating him in the shooting.

But when LBJ then asked "Have you established any more about the visit to the Soviet Embassy in Mexico in September," an event of no little interest to the inner circles of government, Hoover replied "No, that's one angle that's very confusing for this reason. We have up here the tape and the photograph of the man who was at the Soviet Embassy, using Oswald's name. The picture and the tape do not correspond to this man's voice, nor to his appearance. In other words, it appears that there is a second person who was at the Soviet Embassy down there." In other words, an imposter had implicated Oswald in a relationship with Soviet agents, less than two months before the assassination.
History Matters Archive - LBJ-Hoover 11-23-63

implicating the USSR in the thing seems to be could be a motive of a group like the JohnBirchSociety who were organized around anti-communist ideals I believe.

This would mean the general Walker attempt was a faked assassination attempt to draw sympathy for Walker.

This makes more sense then the Posner/Bugliosi idea that Oswald would want to kill both Kennedy and his ideological opposite in Walker.

Posner and Bugliosi's books have been throughly debunked.Posners book Case Closed got shreadded to pieces by long time pioneer Jfk researcher Harold Weisberg in his book Case Open.He throughly shreads to pieces Posners lies in his book.

 

[LA RAM FAN]

whats interesing is that Jimmy Carter,the only halfway decent president we have had since JFK.Carter is the only president we have had since then who wasnt evil and corrupt.Carter like Jfk,also took steps to try and get rid of the CIA as well.

Carter when he got elected,fired that bastard Gerald Fords appointee of the CIA George Bush sr deeply linked to the Jfk assassination,and brought in Stansfield Turner who fired all the covert operation specialists in the CIA getting rid of them cleaning house.

Then in Carters last year or so after Turner had reformed the CIA,he was taking the final steps to get rid of them completely as well. Thats when the CIA obviously, fired a warning shot at him sending him the message-you play ball with us or you will end up like JFK.people call it an assassination attempt on his life but I call it just a WARNING given to him by the CIA.

they caught wind of him trying to do this and sent him the message. Carter was the one president that came out and said he did not believe the warren commission that oswald was the lone assassin,that there was a conspiracy.He made a statement about it in a radio address speech that got blacked out.

Interesing that one of the people that was there that day arrested that day in the assassination attempt on carter,that part of his name was Lee harvey. the magic bullet and coincidence theorists of course will call is just that,a coincidence.

1979 U.S. President Jimmy Carter Assassination Attempt: CIA To Carter "Play Ball Or We'll Kill You Like We Did JFK." | Alternative

The CIA did not kill carter because unlike JFK,he caved in after he got the warning shot fired at him and became their winning puppet serving the establishment and wall street instead of the american people after that.They knew Carter was on his way out of office and that the establishment would rig the election for reagan to win so they were not worried about carter.

sure enough when reagan got in,he got the CIA back to their dirty operations again getting back to their old ways of secret covert operations firing Turner who had just cleaned up the image of the CIA and had reformed them,and bringing in william casey who got the ball going again with covert operations of the CIA.Reagan kept him on despite all this.and this is the man many brainwashed american sheople call the greatest president ever or one of the top five ever.

 

[LA RAM FAN]

speaking of Reagan,like George Bush sr,Gerald Ford,Lyndon Johnson,Dick Nixon,Reagan like all of them got rewarded for either partipating in the planning of the assassination-Nixon,Johnson,and Bush were all involved in that,Reagan like Ford,got rewarded for his partipation in the coverup of the assassination by as governor of California,he successully blocked Jim Garrisons request to subpeona a key CIA high official.

During the Clay Shaw trial, the only time anyone was ever tried for President kennedy's assassination, Bradley fled to California, then under Governor Ronald Reagan, who immediately blocked efforts to extradite him. On February 11, 1988, a group of high-ranking Freemasons gathered in the Oval Office of the White House to honor and be honored by President Reagan. He was made an honorary Scottish Rite Mason by the Grand Lodge of Washington D.C.


Most of the suspects spotted and even photographed in Dallas on the day of Kennedy's murder fled to California, where Gov. Ronald Reagan refused to extradite them for the Clay Shaw trial. Like Hoover and Klan leader Albert Pike before him, Reagan is a Scottish Rite Freemason, and at the time Hoover outranked him. Ignoring Hoover's requests not to extradite these suspects would have meant possible banishment from the order and a significant loss of political power when other powerful Masons in Washington retaliated. This should put President Reagan's controversial visit to Bitburg in perspective; back when he honored dead SS officers-- Nazi war criminals-- at the German cemetery and outraged the world.


Treason

where this REALLY gets interesting though is that Roger Craig who was the dallas police officer on patrol that day,HE talks about it in this link below,with his conversations that he had with Jim Garrison as well during his probe,how governor Reagan blocked Garrisons extradition request of a CIA officer.Garrsion never in his time as a lawyer,EVER had an extradition request block of government officials like he did in this case.Here again is the video of Craig talking as well.

http://www.ratical.org/ratville/JFK/WTKaP.html

•after witnessing the above scene, Deputy Craig ran to the command post at Elm and Houston to report the incident to the authorities. When he got there and asked who was involved in the investigation, a man turned to him and said “I‘m with the Secret Service.” Craig recounted what he had just seen. This “Secret Service” man showed little interest in Craig‘s description of the people leaving, but seemed extremely interested in the description of the Rambler to the degree this was the only part of the recounting that he wrote down. (On 12/22/67, Roger Craig learned from Jim Garrison that this man‘s name was Edgar Eugene Bradley, a right wing preacher from North Hollywood, California and part-time assistant to Carl McIntire, the fundamentalist minister who had founded the American Counsel of Christian Churches. Then-governor Ronald Reagan refused to grant the extradition request from Garrison for the indictment of Bradley during the New Orleans Probe.)



the democrat/republican party is such a joke in the facts its REALLY a one party system.proof of that is in the politicians that have switched over.

Reagan was originally a democrat then switched to republican in 1962. John Connolly -Lbjs long time pal and friend,was on the democrat party with Lbj but then when Lbj got out of office,he then switched over to republican to serve with his OTHER pal of Johnsons and his as well,Dick Nixon going on the republican ticket.Oh and Biden was republican as well before going democrat joing Obamas ticket.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

at all posts by the mental midget, 9/11imjob.

He takes himself seriously.



Well, he takes farts, anuses and fecal matter seriously; but that amounts to the same thing.

 

[Freewill]

Ok, then, where are we now? Do we agree that there was one gunman as did all the other government studies with the exception of the HSCA which arrived at a conspiracy due to faulty expert testimony?

We have moved to the motive of Oswald?

First of all we can't know why Oswald went to Mexico city we just have some evidence that he did.

We can't know why there was an impostor, we just have some evidence that there may have been.

As with all things let's go with what we know. Oswald was not exactly an unknown person. There is more then one set of videos showing him in news reports spouting his pro-Cuba stance. So anyone in those paranoid days would have taken notice o Oswald. Being pro-Cuban would naturally mean he would want to visit Cuba, couldn't do that from American so going to Mexico to obtain a visa would be the next best thing and it really isn't that far from Dallas/Texas.

Who was the impersonator? That is a very, very good question. But let's say this. I don't think that the Russians are that stupid to not know that the CIA watches their embassies as they do ours. So to have Oswald come to the embassy pretty much uncovered doesn't seem to make sense. And to then have someone impersonate him really makes no sense and I don't see what would be the advantage of doing so.

As for the CIA lying and not sharing information? Yoo hoo that is what they do. They are perhaps the biggest dispenser of false flags and disinformation in the world. For the obvious reason to protect sources and methods. 9/11 becomes the next example of something bad happening because the CIA doesn't play nice with other agencies in the government.

That all said, do you really think that the Russians would risk nuclear war with the assignation attempt and do it so crudely as to implicate themselves?

Which is not to say there wasn't a conspiracy, it just doesn't ring true that the Russians would try such a stunt. I might also point no investigation has pointed to the Russians. Even the HSCA didn't think the Russians were in on it.

BTW from the link you provided: The quotes given above are taken from a transcript of the conversation made contemporaneously in 1963. The tape itself appears to have been erased at some time since then. The accompanying audio consists of 14 minutes of noisy silence. See "The Fourteen Minute Gap" essay for more information.

So sad that it seems like so much of the "evidence" is lost.

You have it backwards. There was no 'stunt' by the Russians, they had nothing to do with it. The imposter contacted the Soviet embassy posing as Oswald to implicate Russia.

History Matters - The Framing of Oswald

Interjecting a little logic, if this were not Oswald then it wasn't Oswald. Maybe by a very large fluke of fate someone chose Lee Oswald because they just happened to hear his name on the TV as a pro-Cuba agitator.

 

[Bfgrn]

Ok, then, where are we now? Do we agree that there was one gunman as did all the other government studies with the exception of the HSCA which arrived at a conspiracy due to faulty expert testimony?

We have moved to the motive of Oswald?

First of all we can't know why Oswald went to Mexico city we just have some evidence that he did.

We can't know why there was an impostor, we just have some evidence that there may have been.

As with all things let's go with what we know. Oswald was not exactly an unknown person. There is more then one set of videos showing him in news reports spouting his pro-Cuba stance. So anyone in those paranoid days would have taken notice o Oswald. Being pro-Cuban would naturally mean he would want to visit Cuba, couldn't do that from American so going to Mexico to obtain a visa would be the next best thing and it really isn't that far from Dallas/Texas.

Who was the impersonator? That is a very, very good question. But let's say this. I don't think that the Russians are that stupid to not know that the CIA watches their embassies as they do ours. So to have Oswald come to the embassy pretty much uncovered doesn't seem to make sense. And to then have someone impersonate him really makes no sense and I don't see what would be the advantage of doing so.

As for the CIA lying and not sharing information? Yoo hoo that is what they do. They are perhaps the biggest dispenser of false flags and disinformation in the world. For the obvious reason to protect sources and methods. 9/11 becomes the next example of something bad happening because the CIA doesn't play nice with other agencies in the government.

That all said, do you really think that the Russians would risk nuclear war with the assignation attempt and do it so crudely as to implicate themselves?

Which is not to say there wasn't a conspiracy, it just doesn't ring true that the Russians would try such a stunt. I might also point no investigation has pointed to the Russians. Even the HSCA didn't think the Russians were in on it.

BTW from the link you provided: The quotes given above are taken from a transcript of the conversation made contemporaneously in 1963. The tape itself appears to have been erased at some time since then. The accompanying audio consists of 14 minutes of noisy silence. See "The Fourteen Minute Gap" essay for more information.

So sad that it seems like so much of the "evidence" is lost.

You have it backwards. There was no 'stunt' by the Russians, they had nothing to do with it. The imposter contacted the Soviet embassy posing as Oswald to implicate Russia.

History Matters - The Framing of Oswald

Interjecting a little logic, if this were not Oswald then it wasn't Oswald. Maybe by a very large fluke of fate someone chose Lee Oswald because they just happened to hear his name on the TV as a pro-Cuba agitator.

Logic? You are not using logic, you are clapping as the Emperor parades by wearing no clothes.

"The Emperor's New Clothes" is a short tale by Hans Christian Andersen about two weavers who promise an Emperor a new suit of clothes that is invisible to those unfit for their positions, stupid, or incompetent. When the Emperor parades before his subjects in his new clothes, a child cries out, "But he isn't wearing anything at all!"

 

[Freewill]

OK, who is responsible? The CIA? Really? Why set up such a smuck like Oswald? How did they know how many shots were fired and that they would not find the real bullet in the car, so why plant another and take a chance of having too many bullets? Oh right everyone was in on it except JFK.

Ballistics have proven beyond a reasonable doubt the shots came from behind and above when rationally viewed. All of the investigations have come to that conclusion out of the fog of the INTERNET and book selling fog.

Maybe there is something to Oswald being set up TO DO IT by someone. But it is certain beyond doubt that the driver didn't do it, a person shooting from a manhole didn't do it, and the agent in the car behind didn't accidentally shoot the President.

So if we agree that it was Oswald at least because of his actions after the shooting. Then we can move on to discussing his reasons and if he were set up. Unfortunately I don't think that the Mexico stuff will be too productive because again the fog of the internet.

So, if someone was trying to implicate the Russians then for what purpose? To distract attention from themselves or were they taking a chance at starting WW3? Who would do such a thing? I seriously doubt the mob would have the knowledge. I doubt that the Cubans would try and implicate one of their only friends. Anti-Cuban groups would seemingly have a hard time doing this, too intricate. So that leaves the CIA who did this but wasn't good enough to cover their trail. They are the bastards that came up with this intricate plan involving many people yet they were not smart enough to cover all the evidence. Evidence they did try and hide yet it is the evidence that would expose the Russians and that is what they were trying to do in the first place? The CIA would risk nuclear destruction for what reason?

Here appears to be a good place to start: http://www.history-matters.com/archive/contents/hsca/contents_hsca_lopezrpt_2003.htm

 

[Bfgrn]

OK, who is responsible? The CIA? Really? Why set up such a smuck like Oswald? How did they know how many shots were fired and that they would not find the real bullet in the car, so why plant another and take a chance of having too many bullets? Oh right everyone was in on it except JFK.

Ballistics have proven beyond a reasonable doubt the shots came from behind and above when rationally viewed. All of the investigations have come to that conclusion out of the fog of the INTERNET and book selling fog.

Maybe there is something to Oswald being set up TO DO IT by someone. But it is certain beyond doubt that the driver didn't do it, a person shooting from a manhole didn't do it, and the agent in the car behind didn't accidentally shoot the President.

So if we agree that it was Oswald at least because of his actions after the shooting. Then we can move on to discussing his reasons and if he were set up. Unfortunately I don't think that the Mexico stuff will be too productive because again the fog of the internet.

So, if someone was trying to implicate the Russians then for what purpose? To distract attention from themselves or were they taking a chance at starting WW3? Who would do such a thing? I seriously doubt the mob would have the knowledge. I doubt that the Cubans would try and implicate one of their only friends. Anti-Cuban groups would seemingly have a hard time doing this, too intricate. So that leaves the CIA who did this but wasn't good enough to cover their trail. They are the bastards that came up with this intricate plan involving many people yet they were not smart enough to cover all the evidence. Evidence they did try and hide yet it is the evidence that would expose the Russians and that is what they were trying to do in the first place? The CIA would risk nuclear destruction for what reason?

Here appears to be a good place to start: 2003 Release: Oswald, the CIA, and Mexico City ("Lopez Report")

I don't know who did it. All I know is Oswald, or someone on the 6th floor of the TSBD did not do all the shooting with a bolt action rifle. Connolly was hit by a different shot. The President's back wound was shallow, at a steep angle that never penetrated the pleural cavity and those facts alone eliminate the single bullet theory. The fatal head shot came from the area of the grassy knoll.

Dr Crenshaw Describes JFK Entrance Wounds and SS Intimidation (2 min 57 sec.)

[ame="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vhEEXysH0LY"]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vhEEXysH0LY[/ame]

 

[7forever]

OK, who is responsible? The CIA? Really? Why set up such a smuck like Oswald? How did they know how many shots were fired and that they would not find the real bullet in the car, so why plant another and take a chance of having too many bullets? Oh right everyone was in on it except JFK.

Ballistics have proven beyond a reasonable doubt the shots came from behind and above when rationally viewed. All of the investigations have come to that conclusion out of the fog of the INTERNET and book selling fog.

Maybe there is something to Oswald being set up TO DO IT by someone. But it is certain beyond doubt that the driver didn't do it, a person shooting from a manhole didn't do it, and the agent in the car behind didn't accidentally shoot the President.

So if we agree that it was Oswald at least because of his actions after the shooting. Then we can move on to discussing his reasons and if he were set up. Unfortunately I don't think that the Mexico stuff will be too productive because again the fog of the internet.

So, if someone was trying to implicate the Russians then for what purpose? To distract attention from themselves or were they taking a chance at starting WW3? Who would do such a thing? I seriously doubt the mob would have the knowledge. I doubt that the Cubans would try and implicate one of their only friends. Anti-Cuban groups would seemingly have a hard time doing this, too intricate. So that leaves the CIA who did this but wasn't good enough to cover their trail. They are the bastards that came up with this intricate plan involving many people yet they were not smart enough to cover all the evidence. Evidence they did try and hide yet it is the evidence that would expose the Russians and that is what they were trying to do in the first place? The CIA would risk nuclear destruction for what reason?

Here appears to be a good place to start: 2003 Release: Oswald, the CIA, and Mexico City ("Lopez Report")

I don't know who did it. All I know is Oswald, or someone on the 6th floor of the TSBD did not do all the shooting with a bolt action rifle. Connolly was hit by a different shot. The President's back wound was shallow, at a steep angle that never penetrated the pleural cavity and those facts alone eliminate the single bullet theory. The fatal head shot came from the area of the grassy knoll.

Dr Crenshaw Describes JFK Entrance Wounds and SS Intimidation (2 min 57 sec.)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v]

It couldn't be the grassy knoll because the bullet only involved the right front impact, and right rear exit. Slow motion confirmed that three years ago. The grassy knoll shot only could've entered the right temporal region. The bullet entered over the right eye, which excludes the grassy snow job. Of course this analysis conforms to the right rear exit.


[URL=http://s889.photobucket.com/user/77forever/media/Gifs/jfkmistgif.gif.html]

 

[Freewill]

OK, who is responsible? The CIA? Really? Why set up such a smuck like Oswald? How did they know how many shots were fired and that they would not find the real bullet in the car, so why plant another and take a chance of having too many bullets? Oh right everyone was in on it except JFK.

Ballistics have proven beyond a reasonable doubt the shots came from behind and above when rationally viewed. All of the investigations have come to that conclusion out of the fog of the INTERNET and book selling fog.

Maybe there is something to Oswald being set up TO DO IT by someone. But it is certain beyond doubt that the driver didn't do it, a person shooting from a manhole didn't do it, and the agent in the car behind didn't accidentally shoot the President.

So if we agree that it was Oswald at least because of his actions after the shooting. Then we can move on to discussing his reasons and if he were set up. Unfortunately I don't think that the Mexico stuff will be too productive because again the fog of the internet.

So, if someone was trying to implicate the Russians then for what purpose? To distract attention from themselves or were they taking a chance at starting WW3? Who would do such a thing? I seriously doubt the mob would have the knowledge. I doubt that the Cubans would try and implicate one of their only friends. Anti-Cuban groups would seemingly have a hard time doing this, too intricate. So that leaves the CIA who did this but wasn't good enough to cover their trail. They are the bastards that came up with this intricate plan involving many people yet they were not smart enough to cover all the evidence. Evidence they did try and hide yet it is the evidence that would expose the Russians and that is what they were trying to do in the first place? The CIA would risk nuclear destruction for what reason?

Here appears to be a good place to start: 2003 Release: Oswald, the CIA, and Mexico City ("Lopez Report")

I don't know who did it. All I know is Oswald, or someone on the 6th floor of the TSBD did not do all the shooting with a bolt action rifle. Connolly was hit by a different shot. The President's back wound was shallow, at a steep angle that never penetrated the pleural cavity and those facts alone eliminate the single bullet theory. The fatal head shot came from the area of the grassy knoll.

Dr Crenshaw Describes JFK Entrance Wounds and SS Intimidation (2 min 57 sec.)

[ame="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vhEEXysH0LY"]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vhEEXysH0LY[/ame]

You, in my opinion, only think you know because that is what you want to believe you have too much time invested in trying to prove your case I doubt seriously you are able to walk back from what you have posted.

Here, try this one, an eye witness to the shooting with photos. His testimony is more believable then a person who says she saw an imaginary dog.

TESTIMONY OF HOWARD LESLIE BRENNAN

Mr. BELIN. Would you describe just exactly what you saw when you saw him this last time?
Mr. BRENNAN. Well, as it appeared to me he was standing up and resting against the left window sill, with gun shouldered to his right shoulder, holding the gun with his left hand and taking positive aim and fired his last shot. As I calculate a couple of seconds. He drew the gun back from the window as though he was drawing it back to his side and maybe paused for another second as though to assure hisself that he hit his mark, and then he disappeared.
And, at the same moment, I was diving off of that firewall and to the right for bullet protection of this stone wall that is a little higher on the Houston side.
Mr. BELIN. Well, let me ask you. What kind of a gun did you see in that window?
Mr. BRENNAN. I am not an expert on guns. It was, as I could observe, some type of a high-powered rifle.
Mr. BELIN. Could you tell whether or not it had any kind of a scope on it?
Mr. BRENNAN. I did not observe a scope.
Mr. BELIN. Could you tell whether or not it had one? Do you know whether it did or not, or could you observe that it definitely did or definitely did not, or don't you know?

 

[Freewill]

OK, who is responsible? The CIA? Really? Why set up such a smuck like Oswald? How did they know how many shots were fired and that they would not find the real bullet in the car, so why plant another and take a chance of having too many bullets? Oh right everyone was in on it except JFK.

Ballistics have proven beyond a reasonable doubt the shots came from behind and above when rationally viewed. All of the investigations have come to that conclusion out of the fog of the INTERNET and book selling fog.

Maybe there is something to Oswald being set up TO DO IT by someone. But it is certain beyond doubt that the driver didn't do it, a person shooting from a manhole didn't do it, and the agent in the car behind didn't accidentally shoot the President.

So if we agree that it was Oswald at least because of his actions after the shooting. Then we can move on to discussing his reasons and if he were set up. Unfortunately I don't think that the Mexico stuff will be too productive because again the fog of the internet.

So, if someone was trying to implicate the Russians then for what purpose? To distract attention from themselves or were they taking a chance at starting WW3? Who would do such a thing? I seriously doubt the mob would have the knowledge. I doubt that the Cubans would try and implicate one of their only friends. Anti-Cuban groups would seemingly have a hard time doing this, too intricate. So that leaves the CIA who did this but wasn't good enough to cover their trail. They are the bastards that came up with this intricate plan involving many people yet they were not smart enough to cover all the evidence. Evidence they did try and hide yet it is the evidence that would expose the Russians and that is what they were trying to do in the first place? The CIA would risk nuclear destruction for what reason?

Here appears to be a good place to start: 2003 Release: Oswald, the CIA, and Mexico City ("Lopez Report")

I don't know who did it. All I know is Oswald, or someone on the 6th floor of the TSBD did not do all the shooting with a bolt action rifle. Connolly was hit by a different shot. The President's back wound was shallow, at a steep angle that never penetrated the pleural cavity and those facts alone eliminate the single bullet theory. The fatal head shot came from the area of the grassy knoll.

Dr Crenshaw Describes JFK Entrance Wounds and SS Intimidation (2 min 57 sec.)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v]

It couldn't be the grassy knoll because the bullet only involved the right front impact, and right rear exit. Slow motion confirmed that three years ago. The grassy knoll shot only could've entered the right temporal region. The bullet entered over the right eye, which excludes the grassy snow job. Of course this analysis conforms to the right rear exit.


[URL=http://s889.photobucket.com/user/77forever/media/Gifs/jfkmistgif.gif.html]

Sigh, the photos you supply do not support that theory.

http://www.nbcnews.com/id/27705829/...ts-jfk-conspiracy-theories-rest/#.UyWptpBOXYU

"We might never know if Oswald pulled the trigger, but when you look at the wind pattern, the spread of the debris, the angles and distances involved, it's consistent with a shot from the sixth floor depository," said Martin.

This kind of computer analysis has only been available for about five years, says Martin. He expects criminologists will continue to make use of 3-D crime scene simulations to help reconstruct events and gather evidence a 2-D picture alone can't reveal.

"I think this is the wave of the future," said Martin. "If we had this technology back in the '60s, I think it would have put a lot of the conspiracy theories to rest."

 

[Bfgrn]

OK, who is responsible? The CIA? Really? Why set up such a smuck like Oswald? How did they know how many shots were fired and that they would not find the real bullet in the car, so why plant another and take a chance of having too many bullets? Oh right everyone was in on it except JFK.

Ballistics have proven beyond a reasonable doubt the shots came from behind and above when rationally viewed. All of the investigations have come to that conclusion out of the fog of the INTERNET and book selling fog.

Maybe there is something to Oswald being set up TO DO IT by someone. But it is certain beyond doubt that the driver didn't do it, a person shooting from a manhole didn't do it, and the agent in the car behind didn't accidentally shoot the President.

So if we agree that it was Oswald at least because of his actions after the shooting. Then we can move on to discussing his reasons and if he were set up. Unfortunately I don't think that the Mexico stuff will be too productive because again the fog of the internet.

So, if someone was trying to implicate the Russians then for what purpose? To distract attention from themselves or were they taking a chance at starting WW3? Who would do such a thing? I seriously doubt the mob would have the knowledge. I doubt that the Cubans would try and implicate one of their only friends. Anti-Cuban groups would seemingly have a hard time doing this, too intricate. So that leaves the CIA who did this but wasn't good enough to cover their trail. They are the bastards that came up with this intricate plan involving many people yet they were not smart enough to cover all the evidence. Evidence they did try and hide yet it is the evidence that would expose the Russians and that is what they were trying to do in the first place? The CIA would risk nuclear destruction for what reason?

Here appears to be a good place to start: 2003 Release: Oswald, the CIA, and Mexico City ("Lopez Report")

I don't know who did it. All I know is Oswald, or someone on the 6th floor of the TSBD did not do all the shooting with a bolt action rifle. Connolly was hit by a different shot. The President's back wound was shallow, at a steep angle that never penetrated the pleural cavity and those facts alone eliminate the single bullet theory. The fatal head shot came from the area of the grassy knoll.

Dr Crenshaw Describes JFK Entrance Wounds and SS Intimidation (2 min 57 sec.)

[ame="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vhEEXysH0LY"]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vhEEXysH0LY[/ame]

You, in my opinion, only think you know because that is what you want to believe you have too much time invested in trying to prove your case I doubt seriously you are able to walk back from what you have posted.

Here, try this one, an eye witness to the shooting with photos. His testimony is more believable then a person who says she saw an imaginary dog.

TESTIMONY OF HOWARD LESLIE BRENNAN

Mr. BELIN. Would you describe just exactly what you saw when you saw him this last time?
Mr. BRENNAN. Well, as it appeared to me he was standing up and resting against the left window sill, with gun shouldered to his right shoulder, holding the gun with his left hand and taking positive aim and fired his last shot. As I calculate a couple of seconds. He drew the gun back from the window as though he was drawing it back to his side and maybe paused for another second as though to assure hisself that he hit his mark, and then he disappeared.
And, at the same moment, I was diving off of that firewall and to the right for bullet protection of this stone wall that is a little higher on the Houston side.
Mr. BELIN. Well, let me ask you. What kind of a gun did you see in that window?
Mr. BRENNAN. I am not an expert on guns. It was, as I could observe, some type of a high-powered rifle.
Mr. BELIN. Could you tell whether or not it had any kind of a scope on it?
Mr. BRENNAN. I did not observe a scope.
Mr. BELIN. Could you tell whether or not it had one? Do you know whether it did or not, or could you observe that it definitely did or definitely did not, or don't you know?

You have already been forced to walk back from what you posted.

First shot hit Kennedy in the back and lodges there later to become the "pristine" bullet.

Second shot misses Kennedy and hits Connelly with the bullet fragmentizing..

The third hit Kennedy in the head.

Either way three shot, three from the same person three from Oswald.

While I am good with the single bullet theory it could have gone down in the way I describe and that still does not point to conspiracy.

You better be more than good with the single bullet theory. You are locked into it now, because one of your three shots totally missed the limousine, hit a curb and injured a bystander.

So we are back to square one...

a) You can start by explaining how Oswald was able to fire off the last 2 shots almost simultaneously using a poorly operating bolt action rifle?

b) Then explain how John Connolly could have possibly had a 'delayed reaction' to the grievous wounds that ripped through his chest. To his dying day Connolly vehemently said he was not hit by the first bullet.

Governor Connally told the Warren Commission, "I was turning to look back over my left shoulder into the back seat, but I never got that far in my turn. I got about in the position I am in now facing you, looking a little bit to the left of center, and then I felt like someone had hit me in the back."(1) He elaborated to the House Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA) "...so I was in the process of, at least I was turning to look over my left shoulder into the back seat to see if I could see him. I never looked, I never made the full turn. About the time I turned back where I was facing more or less straight ahead, the way the car was moving, I was hit. I was knocked over, just doubled over by the force of the bullet. It went in my back and came out my chest about 2 inches below and to the left of my right nipple. The force of the bullet drove my body over almost double and when I looked, immediately I could see I was just drenched with blood. (2)

(1) Robert J. Groden & Harrison Edward Livingstone, "High Treason" (New York: Berkley Book 1990) p.272-273
(2)The Report of the Select Committee on Asssassinations U.S. House of Representatives; Vol. 1, p.42

c) Explain how the bullet that entered the President's back and created a shallow wound which was probed during the autopsy and the bottom of the wound could be reached with a human finger exited his throat, from a wound described as an entrance wound by Parkland doctors that was 6 inches higher than the back wound?

 

[Freewill]

I don't know who did it. All I know is Oswald, or someone on the 6th floor of the TSBD did not do all the shooting with a bolt action rifle. Connolly was hit by a different shot. The President's back wound was shallow, at a steep angle that never penetrated the pleural cavity and those facts alone eliminate the single bullet theory. The fatal head shot came from the area of the grassy knoll.

Dr Crenshaw Describes JFK Entrance Wounds and SS Intimidation (2 min 57 sec.)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vhEEXysH0LY

You, in my opinion, only think you know because that is what you want to believe you have too much time invested in trying to prove your case I doubt seriously you are able to walk back from what you have posted.

Here, try this one, an eye witness to the shooting with photos. His testimony is more believable then a person who says she saw an imaginary dog.

TESTIMONY OF HOWARD LESLIE BRENNAN

Mr. BELIN. Would you describe just exactly what you saw when you saw him this last time?
Mr. BRENNAN. Well, as it appeared to me he was standing up and resting against the left window sill, with gun shouldered to his right shoulder, holding the gun with his left hand and taking positive aim and fired his last shot. As I calculate a couple of seconds. He drew the gun back from the window as though he was drawing it back to his side and maybe paused for another second as though to assure hisself that he hit his mark, and then he disappeared.
And, at the same moment, I was diving off of that firewall and to the right for bullet protection of this stone wall that is a little higher on the Houston side.
Mr. BELIN. Well, let me ask you. What kind of a gun did you see in that window?
Mr. BRENNAN. I am not an expert on guns. It was, as I could observe, some type of a high-powered rifle.
Mr. BELIN. Could you tell whether or not it had any kind of a scope on it?
Mr. BRENNAN. I did not observe a scope.
Mr. BELIN. Could you tell whether or not it had one? Do you know whether it did or not, or could you observe that it definitely did or definitely did not, or don't you know?

You have already been forced to walk back from what you posted.

First shot hit Kennedy in the back and lodges there later to become the "pristine" bullet.

Second shot misses Kennedy and hits Connelly with the bullet fragmentizing..

The third hit Kennedy in the head.

Either way three shot, three from the same person three from Oswald.

While I am good with the single bullet theory it could have gone down in the way I describe and that still does not point to conspiracy.

You better be more than good with the single bullet theory. You are locked into it now, because one of your three shots totally missed the limousine, hit a curb and injured a bystander.

So we are back to square one...

a) You can start by explaining how Oswald was able to fire off the last 2 shots almost simultaneously using a poorly operating bolt action rifle?

b) Then explain how John Connolly could have possibly had a 'delayed reaction' to the grievous wounds that ripped through his chest. To his dying day Connolly vehemently said he was not hit by the first bullet.

Governor Connally told the Warren Commission, "I was turning to look back over my left shoulder into the back seat, but I never got that far in my turn. I got about in the position I am in now facing you, looking a little bit to the left of center, and then I felt like someone had hit me in the back."(1) He elaborated to the House Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA) "...so I was in the process of, at least I was turning to look over my left shoulder into the back seat to see if I could see him. I never looked, I never made the full turn. About the time I turned back where I was facing more or less straight ahead, the way the car was moving, I was hit. I was knocked over, just doubled over by the force of the bullet. It went in my back and came out my chest about 2 inches below and to the left of my right nipple. The force of the bullet drove my body over almost double and when I looked, immediately I could see I was just drenched with blood. (2)

(1) Robert J. Groden & Harrison Edward Livingstone, "High Treason" (New York: Berkley Book 1990) p.272-273
(2)The Report of the Select Committee on Asssassinations U.S. House of Representatives; Vol. 1, p.42

c) Explain how the bullet that entered the President's back and created a shallow wound which was probed during the autopsy and the bottom of the wound could be reached with a human finger exited his throat, from a wound described as an entrance wound by Parkland doctors that was 6 inches higher than the back wound?

I did not walk back on anything. What you quote is not in context to the discussion we were having. You wanted a different scenario and that is what I provided. If you read the last sentence I said I have no problem with the single bullet theory. It was actually a mistake on my part in response to your c). What you describe is not what happened the doctor never said the end of the wound was found. The bullet, by every freakin account, went right through the president, never hitting anything particularly hard.

As for Connelly, I can't explain his reaction and neither can you. Explain how he held his hat up to Parkland with a shattered wrist.

 

[7forever]

I don't know who did it. All I know is Oswald, or someone on the 6th floor of the TSBD did not do all the shooting with a bolt action rifle. Connolly was hit by a different shot. The President's back wound was shallow, at a steep angle that never penetrated the pleural cavity and those facts alone eliminate the single bullet theory. The fatal head shot came from the area of the grassy knoll.

Dr Crenshaw Describes JFK Entrance Wounds and SS Intimidation (2 min 57 sec.)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v]

It couldn't be the grassy knoll because the bullet only involved the right front impact, and right rear exit. Slow motion confirmed that three years ago. The grassy knoll shot only could've entered the right temporal region. The bullet entered over the right eye, which excludes the grassy snow job. Of course this analysis conforms to the right rear exit.


[URL=http://s889.photobucket.com/user/77forever/media/Gifs/jfkmistgif.gif.html]

Sigh, the photos you supply do not support that theory.

Tech puts JFK conspiracy theories to rest - Technology & science - Science - DiscoveryNews.com | NBC News

"We might never know if Oswald pulled the trigger, but when you look at the wind pattern, the spread of the debris, the angles and distances involved, it's consistent with a shot from the sixth floor depository," said Martin.

This kind of computer analysis has only been available for about five years, says Martin. He expects criminologists will continue to make use of 3-D crime scene simulations to help reconstruct events and gather evidence a 2-D picture alone can't reveal.

"I think this is the wave of the future," said Martin. "If we had this technology back in the '60s, I think it would have put a lot of the conspiracy theories to rest."

But you claimed the shot came from the grassy knoll. That's a shot to the right temple. Are you on drugs?