Off Topic Messages

Re: Most believe Lee Harvey Oswald was 'patsy'

Tue Nov 12, 2013 10:35 am

Julian Grant wrote:
drjohncarpenter wrote:
Julian Grant wrote:I enjoyed watching this last night. You may too :wink:

phpBB [video]



Given my understanding, he's on the right track, but assigns a bit much to the Mafia's role, while failing to point the finger at the core perpetrators.


Did you watch the full 1:12 minutes? He's quite clear who the core perpetrator was.


Yes, and what's he's clear about is the problem.

Re: Most believe Lee Harvey Oswald was 'patsy'

Tue Nov 12, 2013 10:46 am

drjohncarpenter wrote:
Julian Grant wrote:
drjohncarpenter wrote:
Julian Grant wrote:I enjoyed watching this last night. You may too :wink:

phpBB [video]



Given my understanding, he's on the right track, but assigns a bit much to the Mafia's role, while failing to point the finger at the core perpetrators.


Did you watch the full 1:12 minutes? He's quite clear who the core perpetrator was.


Yes, and what's he's clear about is the problem.


I will finish it up shortly, so if you could elaborate on that? I think I know where you're going.

rjm

Sent From My Phabulous Galaxy Note II Phablet Using Tapatalk 4

Re: Most believe Lee Harvey Oswald was 'patsy'

Tue Nov 12, 2013 11:14 am

One last thought. The TV media will use the anniversary to try to convince the majority of the American people that they are "crazy" to question the official story. You will see shrinks dragged out to "explain" this mass "need" to "find order in randomness." You can bet your Elvis collections on that!

Sadly, any serious consideration of his presidency and life will be put to one side. It will be discussed -- as a footnote. Mainly, they will tell the majority of us that we're nuts, and also believe in "ancient aliens."

I will be one of those who will try not to be so insulted that I harm an innocent expensive TV set!

rjm

Sent From My Phabulous Galaxy Note II Phablet Using Tapatalk 4

Re: Most believe Lee Harvey Oswald was 'patsy'

Thu Nov 14, 2013 3:08 am

rjm wrote:One last thought. The TV media will use the anniversary to try to convince the majority of the American people that they are "crazy" to question the official story. You will see shrinks dragged out to "explain" this mass "need" to "find order in randomness." You can bet your Elvis collections on that!


You are 100% correct. They gotta keep pushing the lie!

Re: Most believe Lee Harvey Oswald was 'patsy'

Thu Nov 14, 2013 3:44 am

The liberal media loves indulge on tragic anniversaries. I'm sure CNN & FOX News are planning a huge all-day hoopala in advance for September 11th, 2051.

Re: Most believe Lee Harvey Oswald was 'patsy'

Thu Nov 14, 2013 4:43 am

TCB-FAN wrote:The liberal media loves indulge on tragic anniversaries. I'm sure CNN & FOX News are planning a huge all-day hoopala in advance for September 11th, 2051.


Huge corporations own the "liberal media."

Use your common sense instead of falling into the trap of parroting spurious rhetorical phrases.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Media_bias_in_the_United_States
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/What_Liberal_Media?

Re: Most believe Lee Harvey Oswald was 'patsy'

Thu Nov 14, 2013 6:26 am

Its weird Marlyn Monroe dies Aug 1962 the Kennedy's get the blame.
Nov 22,1963 JFK killed?
conspiracy behind both deaths will anybody know the real truth behind both ever?

Re: Most believe Lee Harvey Oswald was 'patsy'

Thu Nov 14, 2013 5:42 pm

ranskal wrote:Are you saying that people that don't believe in the multiple gunman fantasy are dumb? Everyone is entitled to their own opinion whether you agree with it or not, why can't you respect that?

The Dallas police said Oswald killed the President, the Warren Commission said Oswald killed the President, and the House Select Committee on Assassinations said Oswald killed him.

His motive is what is still in question and we will probably never know why he did it.


Also House Select Committee on Assassinations said there were two shooters.

Re: Most believe Lee Harvey Oswald was 'patsy'

Thu Nov 14, 2013 9:52 pm

PBS' Nova devoted an hour to the assasination. Impressive attempt to prove the original findings using science and 3D lasers and other experiments. I found it amusing that they got a ballistics expert to explain how JFK threw his head back during that final shot. You'd think they'd get someone with a medical background to explain that...not a gun expert. They use official autopsy photographs as references even though a few of them are so very clearly false. One of them looks like a drawing--not a photograph.

You can watch it here:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/tech/cold-case-jfk.html

Re: Most believe Lee Harvey Oswald was 'patsy'

Thu Nov 14, 2013 10:08 pm

Justin wrote:PBS' Nova devoted an hour to the assasination. Impressive attempt to prove the original findings using science and 3D lasers and other experiments. I found it amusing that they got a ballistics expert to explain how JFK threw his head back during that final shot. You'd think they'd get someone with a medical background to explain that...not a gun expert. They use official autopsy photographs as references even though a few of them are so very clearly false. One of them looks like a drawing--not a photograph.

You can watch it here:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/tech/cold-case-jfk.html


Despite a rich and rewarding programming history, PBS' Nova is unfortunately playing the game. They behaved in similar fashion in their "scientific" analysis of how the twin towers "collapsed" in 2001. You gotta keep promoting the lie!

Re: Most believe Lee Harvey Oswald was 'patsy'

Thu Nov 14, 2013 10:12 pm

jak wrote:Actually the ballistics expert would be the guy you would want to explain the impact of the bullet.The overwhelming majority of people in the medical field wouldn't have a clue how the body reacts upon impact.They just deal with the aftermath.Thats why a gun expert was used.The trajectory and ballistic patterns of bullets is a science.The military and law enforcement have studied a bullets impact on tissue and bone for years.From specially prepared gelatins,pigs and actual shootings.Ballistic experts have an expertise when it comes to knowing how a person reacts when getting shot.The average person doesn't have a clue.Its much different than in the movies and tv.


That actually made me laugh. Thank you.

Re: Most believe Lee Harvey Oswald was 'patsy'

Thu Nov 14, 2013 10:29 pm

This revelation comes from a national survey conducted by History channel, the results from which went into making "JFK Assassination: The Definitive Guide," premiering at 8 p.m. Nov. 22.


I will definitely try to watch this.

http://www.history.com/shows/jfk-specia ... free=false

Re: Most believe Lee Harvey Oswald was 'patsy'

Thu Nov 14, 2013 11:37 pm

drjohncarpenter wrote:
Justin wrote:PBS' Nova devoted an hour to the assasination. Impressive attempt to prove the original findings using science and 3D lasers and other experiments. I found it amusing that they got a ballistics expert to explain how JFK threw his head back during that final shot. You'd think they'd get someone with a medical background to explain that...not a gun expert. They use official autopsy photographs as references even though a few of them are so very clearly false. One of them looks like a drawing--not a photograph.

You can watch it here:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/tech/cold-case-jfk.html


Despite a rich and rewarding programming history, PBS' Nova is unfortunately playing the game. They behaved in similar fashion in their "scientific" analysis of how the twin towers "collapsed" in 2001. You gotta keep promoting the lie!


This is where people like you lose me. "Scientific" analysis has proven that all three shots could have come from the 6th floor window of the book depository. The "magic" bullet has been successfully replicated almost exactly. The way that Kennedy and Connally were seated in the limo show they were lined up for the bullet to pass through them with way it was first postulated and that it didn't need to perform the acrobatics shown in Oliver Stone's movie to do what it did. Scientific analysis has show the head shot came from behind. The "back and to the left" movement was most likely the neuromuscular reaction of the destruction of his brain plus the jet effect of the brain and blood matter shooting out of top side of his head. Yet when someone uses new and current computer and scientific analysis to prove these things are possible, you discredit them and say they are part of the lie.

I don't understand how if all the shots came from the book depository, that proves there was no conspiracy. All it proves is that the shots came from there, not who shot them or why it happened. Even Lee Harvey Oswald firing all the shots doesn't disprove a conspiracy or answer why or who was behind it.

So as we move forward, scientific and computer analysis will keep getting better and more accurate. It may even move the other way and prove the shots didn't come from the book depository but if it does keep showing even more conclusively that they did, will you keep saying they are just perpetuating the lie?

Re: Most believe Lee Harvey Oswald was 'patsy'

Fri Nov 15, 2013 12:16 am

jak wrote:Actually the ballistics expert would be the guy you would want to explain the impact of the bullet.The overwhelming majority of people in the medical field wouldn't have a clue how the body reacts upon impact.They just deal with the aftermath.Thats why a gun expert was used.The trajectory and ballistic patterns of bullets is a science.The military and law enforcement have studied a bullets impact on tissue and bone for years.From specially prepared gelatins,pigs and actual shootings.Ballistic experts have an expertise when it comes to knowing how a person reacts when getting shot.The average person doesn't have a clue.Its much different than in the movies and tv.


The ballistics expert is the guy I want to explain to me how a bullet to the brain causes nerve reactions throughout the body that will cause the body to jerk and shift? I'd rather have someone in the field of neuroscience explain that to me not someone who works with guns. The fact that the producers didn't get such an expert to explain that is a blemish in their argument.

Re: Most believe Lee Harvey Oswald was 'patsy'

Fri Nov 15, 2013 12:19 am

eligain wrote:
drjohncarpenter wrote:
Justin wrote:PBS' Nova devoted an hour to the assasination. Impressive attempt to prove the original findings using science and 3D lasers and other experiments. I found it amusing that they got a ballistics expert to explain how JFK threw his head back during that final shot. You'd think they'd get someone with a medical background to explain that...not a gun expert. They use official autopsy photographs as references even though a few of them are so very clearly false. One of them looks like a drawing--not a photograph.

You can watch it here:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/tech/cold-case-jfk.html


Despite a rich and rewarding programming history, PBS' Nova is unfortunately playing the game. They behaved in similar fashion in their "scientific" analysis of how the twin towers "collapsed" in 2001. You gotta keep promoting the lie!


This is where people like you lose me. "Scientific" analysis has proven that all three shots could have come from the 6th floor window of the book depository. The "magic" bullet has been successfully replicated almost exactly. The way that Kennedy and Connally were seated in the limo show they were lined up for the bullet to pass through them with way it was first postulated and that it didn't need to perform the acrobatics shown in Oliver Stone's movie to do what it did. Scientific analysis has show the head shot came from behind. The "back and to the left" movement was most likely the neuromuscular reaction of the destruction of his brain plus the jet effect of the brain and blood matter shooting out of top side of his head. Yet when someone uses new and current computer and scientific analysis to prove these things are possible, you discredit them and say they are part of the lie.

I don't understand how if all the shots came from the book depository, that proves there was no conspiracy. All it proves is that the shots came from there, not who shot them or why it happened. Even Lee Harvey Oswald firing all the shots doesn't disprove a conspiracy or answer why or who was behind it.

So as we move forward, scientific and computer analysis will keep getting better and more accurate. It may even move the other way and prove the shots didn't come from the book depository but if it does keep showing even more conclusively that they did, will you keep saying they are just perpetuating the lie?


Here's a clue for you: almost everything in your long-winded post is false. ;-)

Re: Most believe Lee Harvey Oswald was 'patsy'

Fri Nov 15, 2013 12:20 am

Justin wrote:
jak wrote:Actually the ballistics expert would be the guy you would want to explain the impact of the bullet.The overwhelming majority of people in the medical field wouldn't have a clue how the body reacts upon impact.They just deal with the aftermath.Thats why a gun expert was used.The trajectory and ballistic patterns of bullets is a science.The military and law enforcement have studied a bullets impact on tissue and bone for years.From specially prepared gelatins,pigs and actual shootings.Ballistic experts have an expertise when it comes to knowing how a person reacts when getting shot.The average person doesn't have a clue.Its much different than in the movies and tv.


The ballistics expert is the guy I want to explain to me how a bullet to the brain causes nerve reactions throughout the body that will cause the body to jerk and shift? I'd rather have someone in the field of neuroscience explain that to me not someone who works with guns. The fact that the producers didn't get such an expert to explain that is a blemish in their argument.


The more one invests in these parlor games, the more the evildoers win.

Food for thought.

Re: Most believe Lee Harvey Oswald was 'patsy'

Fri Nov 15, 2013 12:45 am

*Sigh*

Re: Most believe Lee Harvey Oswald was 'patsy'

Fri Nov 15, 2013 1:07 am

jak wrote:
Justin wrote:
jak wrote:Actually the ballistics expert would be the guy you would want to explain the impact of the bullet.The overwhelming majority of people in the medical field wouldn't have a clue how the body reacts upon impact.They just deal with the aftermath.Thats why a gun expert was used.The trajectory and ballistic patterns of bullets is a science.The military and law enforcement have studied a bullets impact on tissue and bone for years.From specially prepared gelatins,pigs and actual shootings.Ballistic experts have an expertise when it comes to knowing how a person reacts when getting shot.The average person doesn't have a clue.Its much different than in the movies and tv.


The ballistics expert is the guy I want to explain to me how a bullet to the brain causes nerve reactions throughout the body that will cause the body to jerk and shift? I'd rather have someone in the field of neuroscience explain that to me not someone who works with guns. The fact that the producers didn't get such an expert to explain that is a blemish in their argument.




The ballistic expert bolsters their argument.Once again,you can have the greatest neuroscientist in their field.That doesn't mean he understands the behavior and characteristics of different bullet types.The ballistic expert understands the cause and effect of different ammunition.It all depends on the type of bullet,speed and impact location.I think if people are not familiar with ammunition and firearms it can be hard to grasp.A ballistic expert can look at the video of Kennedy getting shot and gather lots of info from it that most people just don't understand.Including medical professionals.Many people in the medical field have never even fired a gun.


A ballistic expert understands how bullets move and how they the interact with their targets. Their expertise begins and ends there. They do NOT have expert knowledge on why or how the brain causes neurological reactions throughout the body. Since when did ballistic experts have medical training to make these distinctions? I wouldn't trust a ballistic expert making these claims any more than I would trust a neurosurgeon making claims about how a bullet exits a body.

Re: Most believe Lee Harvey Oswald was 'patsy'

Fri Nov 15, 2013 2:15 am

eligain wrote:....This is where people like you lose me. "Scientific" analysis has proven that all three shots could have come from the 6th floor window of the book depository. The "magic" bullet has been successfully replicated almost exactly. The way that Kennedy and Connally were seated in the limo show they were lined up for the bullet to pass through them with way it was first postulated and that it didn't need to perform the acrobatics shown in Oliver Stone's movie to do what it did. Scientific analysis has show the head shot came from behind. The "back and to the left" movement was most likely the neuromuscular reaction of the destruction of his brain plus the jet effect of the brain and blood matter shooting out of top side of his head. Yet when someone uses new and current computer and scientific analysis to prove these things are possible, you discredit them and say they are part of the lie.....


Yeah, sometimes facts get in the way of a really compelling story.....

Re: Most believe Lee Harvey Oswald was 'patsy'

Fri Nov 15, 2013 2:49 am

*Sigh*

Re: Most believe Lee Harvey Oswald was 'patsy'

Fri Nov 15, 2013 4:03 am

drjohncarpenter wrote:
eligain wrote:
drjohncarpenter wrote:
Justin wrote:PBS' Nova devoted an hour to the assasination. Impressive attempt to prove the original findings using science and 3D lasers and other experiments. I found it amusing that they got a ballistics expert to explain how JFK threw his head back during that final shot. You'd think they'd get someone with a medical background to explain that...not a gun expert. They use official autopsy photographs as references even though a few of them are so very clearly false. One of them looks like a drawing--not a photograph.

You can watch it here:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/tech/cold-case-jfk.html


Despite a rich and rewarding programming history, PBS' Nova is unfortunately playing the game. They behaved in similar fashion in their "scientific" analysis of how the twin towers "collapsed" in 2001. You gotta keep promoting the lie!


This is where people like you lose me. "Scientific" analysis has proven that all three shots could have come from the 6th floor window of the book depository. The "magic" bullet has been successfully replicated almost exactly. The way that Kennedy and Connally were seated in the limo show they were lined up for the bullet to pass through them with way it was first postulated and that it didn't need to perform the acrobatics shown in Oliver Stone's movie to do what it did. Scientific analysis has show the head shot came from behind. The "back and to the left" movement was most likely the neuromuscular reaction of the destruction of his brain plus the jet effect of the brain and blood matter shooting out of top side of his head. Yet when someone uses new and current computer and scientific analysis to prove these things are possible, you discredit them and say they are part of the lie.

I don't understand how if all the shots came from the book depository, that proves there was no conspiracy. All it proves is that the shots came from there, not who shot them or why it happened. Even Lee Harvey Oswald firing all the shots doesn't disprove a conspiracy or answer why or who was behind it.

So as we move forward, scientific and computer analysis will keep getting better and more accurate. It may even move the other way and prove the shots didn't come from the book depository but if it does keep showing even more conclusively that they did, will you keep saying they are just perpetuating the lie?


Here's a clue for you: almost everything in your long-winded post is false. ;-)


Exactly how is it false? Don't just say it, explain it. BTW, what I wrote is long winded? This is another point where you lose me and where you lose me on most of your Elvis posts; your arrogant, insulting attitude. You never fail to live up to your reputation.

Re: Most believe Lee Harvey Oswald was 'patsy'

Fri Nov 15, 2013 4:11 am

jak wrote:Read this:
3. The Head Shot & The Zapruder Film

One of the biggest sacred cows of the research community is Kennedy's backward head-snap starting in frame 313 of the Zapruder film. How could Kennedy's head go backwards if he was shot from behind? Well, analysis by Luis Alvarez, a Nobel-prize winning physicist, shows that the mass excreted from a head shot can propel the head backward -- "the jet [of brain matter] can carry forward more momentum than was brought in by the bullet and the head recoils backwards, just as a rocket recoils when its jet fuel is ejected."[30] Alvarez concludes that "the law of physics are more in accordance with the conclusions of the Warren Commission than they are with the ones of the critics." [31] Yet, the critics still argue the case for a shot from the front. Groden publishes frame 313 of the Zapruder film with the following caption, "The fatal head shot, coming from in front of the President's car, rapidly pushes his head and body rearward and to the left." [32] Nowhere in his book does he discuss Alvarez's conclusions. Of course, the backwards head-snap did not bother any of the forensic pathologists on the House Assassinations Committee. The forensic pathology panel said that the majority of the panel believes that there is a possibility that this movement may have been caused by neurologic response to the massive brain damage caused by the bullet, or by a propulsive effect resulting from the matter that exited through the large defect under great pressure, or a combination of both. Whatever the cause of the President's movement, the majority of the panel concludes that only one bullet struck the President's head and that entered at the rear and exited from the right front. [33]
Further, the autopsy x-rays and photographs show that the back of Kennedy's head was intact with a large gaping exit wound in the right parietal area of the head. This is consistent with a shot from the rear. And, if you watch the Zapruder film, you will notice that the back of Kennedy's head does remain intact and that there is a rather noticeable exit wound exactly where the autopsy materials show it to be. [34] The Moorman photograph, taken seconds after Kennedy was hit in the head, also shows the back of his head to be totally intact. [35] Thus, the photographic evidence is consistent with the autopsy materials -- all of which support a shot fired from behind Kennedy. This has led some critics to claim that the Zapruder film was doctored by the CIA at the NPIC right after the assassination (see Section 4). Of course, if the film was doctored, why not also change the head-snap?


Something I found:
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/headwnd.htm

Re: Most believe Lee Harvey Oswald was 'patsy'

Fri Nov 15, 2013 4:32 am

mark wrote:
ranskal wrote:Are you saying that people that don't believe in the multiple gunman fantasy are dumb? Everyone is entitled to their own opinion whether you agree with it or not, why can't you respect that?

The Dallas police said Oswald killed the President, the Warren Commission said Oswald killed the President, and the House Select Committee on Assassinations said Oswald killed him.

His motive is what is still in question and we will probably never know why he did it.


Also House Select Committee on Assassinations said there were two shooters.


The HSCA said based on acoustical evidence, there was a high probability that a second gunman fired at Kennedy. This was in regard to the sound that was picked up on an open mike by one of the police officers. That has since been discredited.

Re: Most believe Lee Harvey Oswald was 'patsy'

Fri Nov 15, 2013 11:56 am

phpBB [video]

Re: Most believe Lee Harvey Oswald was 'patsy'

Fri Nov 15, 2013 12:58 pm

Elvis-nerds are in NO position to judge other geeks.

This was about as funny as a crutch.

rjm

Sent From My Phabulous Galaxy Note II Phablet Using Tapatalk 4