+- Deep Politics Forum (https://deeppoliticsforum.com/fora)
+-- Forum: Deep Politics Forum (https://deeppoliticsforum.com/fora/Forum-Deep-Politics-Forum)
+--- Forum: JFK Assassination (https://deeppoliticsforum.com/fora/Forum-JFK-Assassination)
+--- Thread: shots from behind / shots from in front (/Thread-shots-from-behind-shots-from-in-front)
Pages:
1
2
shots from behind / shots from in front - Nick Lombardi - 21-05-2016
I'm led to wonder why LNers (henceforth known as "Oswaldists") refute all corroborating witness statements who heard shots fired from the Grassy Knoll by pointing out that several other witnesses corroborate hearing shots from the TSBD. In the mind of the LN Oswaldists, shots fired from the TSBD is synonymous with shots ONLY being fired from the TSBD. Why do these people believe critics flat-out deny shots were ever fired from there? No one denies it. Yet they like to pretend shots fired from the TSBD are to the exclusion of shots fired anywhere else.
Has anyone else encountered this laughable argument from someone trying to "prove" Oswald acted alone?
shots from behind / shots from in front - Albert Doyle - 21-05-2016
David Von Pein is an infamous internet disinformationist who likes to contrive evidence in conformity with the Warren Report to the exclusion of everything else.
shots from behind / shots from in front - Lauren Johnson - 21-05-2016
John McAdams.
shots from behind / shots from in front - Nick Lombardi - 22-05-2016
Albert Doyle Wrote:David Von Pein is an infamous internet disinformationist who likes to contrive evidence in conformity with the Warren Report to the exclusion of everything else.
Funnily, a recent look back of an old debate between myself and clown David Von Trapped was what inspired me to start this thread.
shots from behind / shots from in front - Tracy Riddle - 24-05-2016
Nick Lombardi Wrote:I'm led to wonder why LNers (henceforth known as "Oswaldists") refute all corroborating witness statements who heard shots fired from the Grassy Knoll by pointing out that several other witnesses corroborate hearing shots from the TSBD. In the mind of the LN Oswaldists, shots fired from the TSBD is synonymous with shots ONLY being fired from the TSBD. Why do these people believe critics flat-out deny shots were ever fired from there? No one denies it. Yet they like to pretend shots fired from the TSBD are to the exclusion of shots fired anywhere else.
Has anyone else encountered this laughable argument from someone trying to "prove" Oswald acted alone?
No spent shells were found behind the fence, therefore, no shooter was there - that's the argument I've heard frequently.
shots from behind / shots from in front - Bob Prudhomme - 25-05-2016
Did you know that it is very possible the plotters originally wanted it to sound like all the shots came from toward the Grassy Knoll?
Want to know how to make the sound from a rifle shot from behind appear to come from the opposite direction?
shots from behind / shots from in front - Phil Dagosto - 25-05-2016
Tracy Riddle Wrote:Nick Lombardi Wrote:I'm led to wonder why LNers (henceforth known as "Oswaldists") refute all corroborating witness statements who heard shots fired from the Grassy Knoll by pointing out that several other witnesses corroborate hearing shots from the TSBD. In the mind of the LN Oswaldists, shots fired from the TSBD is synonymous with shots ONLY being fired from the TSBD. Why do these people believe critics flat-out deny shots were ever fired from there? No one denies it. Yet they like to pretend shots fired from the TSBD are to the exclusion of shots fired anywhere else.
Has anyone else encountered this laughable argument from someone trying to "prove" Oswald acted alone?
No spent shells were found behind the fence, therefore, no shooter was there - that's the argument I've heard frequently.
Probably because those guys were smart enough to police up their used cartridges and the guys in the TSBD deliberately planted used M-C shells that weren't actually fired that day.
shots from behind / shots from in front - David Josephs - 25-05-2016
The "Official Evidence" available will always have one and only one suspect.
It will only support Oswald in the 6th floor window and 3 shots.
Everything else is officially deemed "unofficial" so it holds little if any weight until you prove it to be evidence of the conspiracy.
According to trained, CIVILIAN ER doctors and nurses there was no shot from behind that hits JFK above the shoulders... In fact, to them, there was NO SHOT from behind JFK. From the Autopsy that no longer exists we learn:
Mr. Rankin:
Then theres a great range of material in regards to the wound and the autopsy and this point of exit or entrance of the bullet in the front of the neck, and that all has to be developed much more than we have at the present time.
We have an explanation there in the autopsy that probably a fragment came out the front of the neck, but with the elevation the shot must have come from, and the angle, it seems quite apparent, since we have the picture of where the bullet entered in the back, that the bullet entered below the shoulder blade to the right of the backbone, which is below the place where the picture shows the bullet came out in the neckband of the shirt in front, and the bullet, according to the autopsy didn't strike any bone at all, that particular bullet, and go through.
So that how it could turn, and --
Rep. Boggs. I thought I read that bullet just went in a finger's length.
Mr. Rankin. That is what they first said
The Evidence IS the Conspiracy.... there is no passage in the autopsy which says anything like this... so what is Rankin referring to here?
Prior to Bethesda there is simply no evidence which supports the autopsy evidence or a shot from the rear to anything above his shoulders
Boswell will try to tell us that 80% of his skull was gone - this after 8pm and JFK's body having been in that autopsy room for over an hour with the FBI barred from entry.
The Zfilm shows the front right hinged open yet close-able, not missing.
Humes' own description of the newly altered wounds appears in his testimony. The image below is an anatomically correct representation of that description.
Q. Dr. Humes, when did you first see the body of President Kennedy?
A. I didn't look at my watch, if I even had a watch on, but I would guess it was 6:45 or 7 o'clock, something like that, approximately.
I guess someone should have told the JCBT that while they were loading JFK's casket into the Ambulance, Humes was already with JFK at Bethesda... nice trick...
And we want to talk about what the Evidence shows?
"We found that the right cerebral hemisphere was markedly disrupted. There was a longitudinal laceration of the right hemisphere which was parasagittal in position. By the sagittal plane, as you may know, is a plane in the midline which would divide the brain into right and left halves. This laceration was parasagittal. It was situated approximately (1 & 2) 2.5 cm. to the right of the midline, and extended from the tip of occipital lobe, which is the posterior portion of the brain, to the tip of the frontal lobe which is the most anterior portion of the brain, and it extended from the top down to the substance of the brain a distance of approximately 5 or 6 cm. The base of the laceration was situated approximately 4.5 cm. below the vertex in the white matter. By the vertex we mean--the highest point on the skull is referred to as the vertex.
The area in which the greatest loss of brain substance was particularly in the parietal lobe, which is the major portion of the right cerebral hemisphere.
The margins of this laceration at all points were jagged and irregular, with additional lacerations extending in varying directions and for varying distances from the main laceration.
In addition, there was a (3) laceration of the corpus callosum which is a body of fibers which connects the two hemispheres of the brain to each other, which extended from the posterior to the anterior portion of this structure, that is the corpus callosum. Exposed in this laceration were portions of the ventricular system in which the spinal fluid normally is disposed within the brain.
When viewed from above the left cerebral hemisphere was intact. There was engorgement of blood vessels in the meninges covering the brain. We note that the gyri and sulci, which are the convolutions of the brain over the left hemisphere were of normal size and distribution.
Those on the right were too fragmented and distorted for satisfactory description.
(4) When the brain was turned over and viewed from its basular or inferior aspect, there was found a longitudinal laceration of the mid-brain through the floor of the third ventricle, just behind the optic chiasma and the mammillary bodies. This laceration partially communicates with an oblique 1.5 cm. tear through the left cerebral peduncle. This is a portion of the brain which connects the higher centers of the brain with the spinal cord which is more concerned with reflex actions."
shots from behind / shots from in front - Tracy Riddle - 25-05-2016
Phil Dagosto Wrote:Tracy Riddle Wrote:Nick Lombardi Wrote:I'm led to wonder why LNers (henceforth known as "Oswaldists") refute all corroborating witness statements who heard shots fired from the Grassy Knoll by pointing out that several other witnesses corroborate hearing shots from the TSBD. In the mind of the LN Oswaldists, shots fired from the TSBD is synonymous with shots ONLY being fired from the TSBD. Why do these people believe critics flat-out deny shots were ever fired from there? No one denies it. Yet they like to pretend shots fired from the TSBD are to the exclusion of shots fired anywhere else.
Has anyone else encountered this laughable argument from someone trying to "prove" Oswald acted alone?
No spent shells were found behind the fence, therefore, no shooter was there - that's the argument I've heard frequently.
Probably because those guys were smart enough to police up their used cartridges and the guys in the TSBD deliberately planted used M-C shells that weren't actually fired that day.
That's what any halfway intelligent person might conclude, but it's obviously too much for them.
shots from behind / shots from in front - Nick Lombardi - 25-05-2016
Tracy Riddle Wrote:Phil Dagosto Wrote:Tracy Riddle Wrote:Nick Lombardi Wrote:I'm led to wonder why LNers (henceforth known as "Oswaldists") refute all corroborating witness statements who heard shots fired from the Grassy Knoll by pointing out that several other witnesses corroborate hearing shots from the TSBD. In the mind of the LN Oswaldists, shots fired from the TSBD is synonymous with shots ONLY being fired from the TSBD. Why do these people believe critics flat-out deny shots were ever fired from there? No one denies it. Yet they like to pretend shots fired from the TSBD are to the exclusion of shots fired anywhere else.
Has anyone else encountered this laughable argument from someone trying to "prove" Oswald acted alone?
No spent shells were found behind the fence, therefore, no shooter was there - that's the argument I've heard frequently.
Probably because those guys were smart enough to police up their used cartridges and the guys in the TSBD deliberately planted used M-C shells that weren't actually fired that day.
That's what any halfway intelligent person might conclude, but it's obviously too much for them.
The other favorite Talking Point/argument is that no one *saw* a sniper behind the fence. It's at this point you need to remind them that you aren't supposed to see snipers. That's why they are called snipers. You also need to remind them that when the President of the United States is five feet away from you, and his head happens to be getting razed at the time, your attention is not trained on some shrubs off to the side.