| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"brodix" |
| Date: |
10 Oct 2004 06:58:31 PM |
| Object: |
Resolving Kennedy's Assassination |
Adding to the conspiracy aspect of this forum...
This first occurred to me about the time Oliver Stone's JFK came out.
I read several books on the subject and in the notes at the end of
one, it was mentioned that of the three shell casings found at the
window of the book depository, two were shiny and one was tarnished.
The author said it was the opinion of some theorists that only two
shots had been fired from this location and an old casing had just
been chambered to ensure the breech was clear.
Another reason occurred to me. Bullet brass tarnishes easily,
especially from finger oils and a tarnished shell casing is often
evidence of reloaded ammunition.
There were three primary wounds and two secondary wounds.
The first shot struck Kennedy in the upper back and travelled at an
upward trajectory, exiting out his neck. I don't recall any
description of internal damage, but there were minor fragment wounds
around the entry wound. This bullet apparently lodged in the window
frame, next to the rearview mirror.
It seems likely that this bullet did not hit Kennedy directly, but
struck directly behind him and ricoshetted at an upward angle.
The second shot struck Connelly in the back and grazed a rib as it
was exiting. This bullet then entered his leg and fell out on the
hopital gurney. It was this bullet that the Warren Commision claimed
had hit both Kennedy and Connelly, thus earning the "magic bullet"
designation because it was in such good condition.
Even Connelly didn't believe this. According to an interview with Dan
Rather that I saw, he said that after the first shot, he turned around
and saw that Kennedy was hit. He turned back forward and was struck.
He also said the third shot was louder than the first two.
One of the first two bullets also went through Kennedy's right wrist.
The third shot struck Kennedy in the head and caused massive damage
to the right side. There were fragments in his brain that showed up on
x-rays taken at the hospital.
Presuming this bullet struck him in the back of the head. It must
have fragmented on contact.
So there were five wounds. Four were the normal entry/exist wounds
expected of a high-powered military round of the sort used in Oswald's
rifle. The last one was caused by a round that fragmented completely
on contact.
In Fredrick Forsythe's The Day of the Jackal, one of the plot devices
was that the assassin used explosive ammunition. It was manufactured
by drilling out the bullet and putting in a drop of mercury and
soldering it over. When the bullet struck its target, the mercury flew
forward, exploding the front of the bullet.
Consider that one of the memorable clues was that on the motorcycle
dictagraph recording, the were three clear spikes that were clearly
the result of gunshots, but a seventh of a second after the third
shot, there was another spike that wasn't quite as prominant. This was
held up as evidence of a fourth shot.
Earlier this summer, there was an episode of Histories Mysteries that
was about the various photographers on the scene and the information
that could be gleaned from them and their pictures. Toward the end of
the show, one of them was describing how shocked he was as it
happened. Then he said that when he felt the pressure of the third
shot on his face, he knew it was for real.
Of the conspiracy theories, the main contention has been that there
was a shooter on the grassy knoll, behind the fence. The primary
reason for this was because the acoustics made it sound as if the
third shot had come from a different location and it was the closest
possibility.
Another reason was an apparent puff of smoke in one of the pictures.
It should be noted that "smokeless gunpowder" had replaced black
powder when modern guns replaced muzzle loaders.
Another conspiracy theory is that Oswald had not actually been the
one firing the gun, but had been set up. If you accept the possibility
that the first shot ricoshetted, then the first two shots actually
missed. This doesn't seem as though it would be the work of a
professional.
Oswald had tried to kill a general some months previously and had
missed with the one shot he fired. If this was his trial run, an
obvious lesson would be not to count on only one shot.
I am not by nature a debunker, but I recognize my own tendencies to
perceive patterns that only exist as a function of my particular
perspective and I've come to see that human behavior is generally
happenstance, with secret conspiracies lacking the broad oversight
that is so often necessary to keep efforts from failing.
regards,
brodix
.
|
|
| User: "Steve Harris" |
|
| Title: Re: Resolving Kennedy's Assassination |
11 Oct 2004 10:17:52 PM |
|
|
(brodix) wrote in message news:<a09976c7.0410101558.351991e6@posting.google.com>...
Adding to the conspiracy aspect of this forum...
There were three primary wounds and two secondary wounds.
The first shot struck Kennedy in the upper back and travelled at an
upward trajectory, exiting out his neck.
That's actually a downward trajectory, as it was the extreme upper
back, and JFK tended to slump.
I don't recall any
description of internal damage, but there were minor fragment wounds
around the entry wound. This bullet apparently lodged in the window
frame, next to the rearview mirror.
No. Those fragments were tiny, and could just as easily have been
fragments from the final shot to the head, which fragmented badly.
It seems likely that this bullet did not hit Kennedy directly, but
struck directly behind him and ricoshetted at an upward angle.
No, it hit him directly, as shown by the very tiny and round entry
hole. The exit hole was destoyed by the trach, but witnesses testimony
suggests it was round as well.
All these are probably the second shot Oswald fired. His first no
doubt hit a tree limb on the oak, and probably then the curb and
underpass down the street. I recommend a good reading of G. Posner's
_Case Closed_. (Posner only screws up once-- there is a picture
proving that 15 yo Oswald was in the Civil Air Patrol with Ferrie in
1955, weird as that may be).
The second shot struck Connelly in the back and grazed a rib as it
was exiting. This bullet then entered his leg and fell out on the
hopital gurney. It was this bullet that the Warren Commision claimed
had hit both Kennedy and Connelly, thus earning the "magic bullet"
designation because it was in such good condition.
No, the magic moniker was because of a screwup in doing angles. But
when you get everybody placed right, it works. See Case Closed.
Even Connelly didn't believe this. According to an interview with Dan
Rather that I saw, he said that after the first shot, he turned around
and saw that Kennedy was hit. He turned back forward and was struck.
He also said the third shot was louder than the first two.
Alas, the Zapruder film shows Connelly is wrong. His lapel flips up
after the bullet goes through his chest, and you can see this before
JFK even exits from being hidden behind the Stemmons sign (where you
see he's been shot also). So Connelly is hit HERE, and it's with the
same bullet that hits JFK through the neck. Connelly doesn't glance
back until after this. Yes, it takes Connelly a few tenths of a second
to react to being shot, and probably even to feel it. But that's how
getting shot is.
One of the first two bullets also went through Kennedy's right wrist.
No, that's Connelly's wrist, and it's the same magic bullet.
The third shot struck Kennedy in the head and caused massive damage
to the right side. There were fragments in his brain that showed up on
x-rays taken at the hospital.
Presuming this bullet struck him in the back of the head. It must
have fragmented on contact.
Correct.
So there were five wounds. Four were the normal entry/exist wounds
expected of a high-powered military round of the sort used in Oswald's
rifle. The last one was caused by a round that fragmented completely
on contact.
No. Tests with 6.5 mm ammo show that even 140 gr FMJ slugs like Oswald
used, can fragment completely in hitting something hard like a skull.
And yet can also go through a slabs of meat without being deformed,
but simply slowing a lot. Which happened with the JFK-neck
Connolly-chest bullet.
Consider that one of the memorable clues was that on the motorcycle
dictagraph recording, the were three clear spikes that were clearly
the result of gunshots, but a seventh of a second after the third
shot, there was another spike that wasn't quite as prominant. This was
held up as evidence of a fourth shot.
The dictabelt contains conversation that proves it didn't happen at
the time of the shooting, but later. It's irrelevent.
Earlier this summer, there was an episode of Histories Mysteries that
was about the various photographers on the scene and the information
that could be gleaned from them and their pictures. Toward the end of
the show, one of them was describing how shocked he was as it
happened. Then he said that when he felt the pressure of the third
shot on his face, he knew it was for real.
Of the conspiracy theories, the main contention has been that there
was a shooter on the grassy knoll, behind the fence. The primary
reason for this was because the acoustics made it sound as if the
third shot had come from a different location and it was the closest
possibility.
Another reason was an apparent puff of smoke in one of the pictures.
It should be noted that "smokeless gunpowder" had replaced black
powder when modern guns replaced muzzle loaders.
Which makes this idea especially dumb. Maybe they shot JFK with a
civil war Springfield muzzle loader and black powder??
Another conspiracy theory is that Oswald had not actually been the
one firing the gun, but had been set up.
A man fitting Oswald's description was seen firing from the 6th floor
window. Oswald's description was broadcast, and that's why he was
stopped by Officer Tibbets (whom he certainly killed).
If you accept the possibility
that the first shot ricoshetted, then the first two shots actually
missed. This doesn't seem as though it would be the work of a
professional.
Oswald wasn't a professional, though he did shoot well. His weapon
wasn't a pro weapon.
Oswald had tried to kill a general some months previously and had
missed with the one shot he fired. If this was his trial run, an
obvious lesson would be not to count on only one shot.
Yep. Read _Case Closed_
SBH
.
|
|
|
| User: "S. Enterprize Company" |
|
| Title: Re: Resolving Kennedy's Assassination |
12 Oct 2004 05:16:51 AM |
|
|
brodix@earthlink.net (brodix) wrote in message
news:<a09976c7.0410101558.351991e6@posting.google.com>...
Adding to the conspiracy aspect of this forum...
There were three primary wounds and two secondary wounds.
The first shot struck Kennedy in the upper back and travelled at an
upward trajectory, exiting out his neck.
That's actually a downward trajectory, as it was the extreme upper
back, and JFK tended to slump.
I don't recall any
description of internal damage, but there were minor fragment wounds
around the entry wound. This bullet apparently lodged in the window
frame, next to the rearview mirror.
No. Those fragments were tiny, and could just as easily have been
fragments from the final shot to the head, which fragmented badly.
It seems likely that this bullet did not hit Kennedy directly, but
struck directly behind him and ricoshetted at an upward angle.
No, it hit him directly, as shown by the very tiny and round entry
hole. The exit hole was destoyed by the trach, but witnesses testimony
suggests it was round as well.
All these are probably the second shot Oswald fired. His first no
doubt hit a tree limb on the oak, and probably then the curb and
underpass down the street. I recommend a good reading of G. Posner's
_Case Closed_. (Posner only screws up once-- there is a picture
proving that 15 yo Oswald was in the Civil Air Patrol with Ferrie in
1955, weird as that may be).
The second shot struck Connelly in the back and grazed a rib as it
was exiting. This bullet then entered his leg and fell out on the
hopital gurney. It was this bullet that the Warren Commision claimed
had hit both Kennedy and Connelly, thus earning the "magic bullet"
designation because it was in such good condition.
No, the magic moniker was because of a screwup in doing angles. But
when you get everybody placed right, it works. See Case Closed.
Even Connelly didn't believe this. According to an interview with Dan
Rather that I saw, he said that after the first shot, he turned around
and saw that Kennedy was hit. He turned back forward and was struck.
He also said the third shot was louder than the first two.
Alas, the Zapruder film shows Connelly is wrong. His lapel flips up
after the bullet goes through his chest, and you can see this before
JFK even exits from being hidden behind the Stemmons sign (where you
see he's been shot also). So Connelly is hit HERE, and it's with the
same bullet that hits JFK through the neck. Connelly doesn't glance
back until after this. Yes, it takes Connelly a few tenths of a second
to react to being shot, and probably even to feel it. But that's how
getting shot is.
One of the first two bullets also went through Kennedy's right wrist.
No, that's Connelly's wrist, and it's the same magic bullet.
The third shot struck Kennedy in the head and caused massive damage
to the right side. There were fragments in his brain that showed up on
x-rays taken at the hospital.
Presuming this bullet struck him in the back of the head. It must
have fragmented on contact.
Correct.
So there were five wounds. Four were the normal entry/exist wounds
expected of a high-powered military round of the sort used in Oswald's
rifle. The last one was caused by a round that fragmented completely
on contact.
No. Tests with 6.5 mm ammo show that even 140 gr FMJ slugs like Oswald
used, can fragment completely in hitting something hard like a skull.
And yet can also go through a slabs of meat without being deformed,
but simply slowing a lot. Which happened with the JFK-neck
Connolly-chest bullet.
Consider that one of the memorable clues was that on the motorcycle
dictagraph recording, the were three clear spikes that were clearly
the result of gunshots, but a seventh of a second after the third
shot, there was another spike that wasn't quite as prominant. This was
held up as evidence of a fourth shot.
The dictabelt contains conversation that proves it didn't happen at
the time of the shooting, but later. It's irrelevent.
Earlier this summer, there was an episode of Histories Mysteries that
was about the various photographers on the scene and the information
that could be gleaned from them and their pictures. Toward the end of
the show, one of them was describing how shocked he was as it
happened. Then he said that when he felt the pressure of the third
shot on his face, he knew it was for real.
Of the conspiracy theories, the main contention has been that there
was a shooter on the grassy knoll, behind the fence. The primary
reason for this was because the acoustics made it sound as if the
third shot had come from a different location and it was the closest
possibility.
Another reason was an apparent puff of smoke in one of the pictures.
It should be noted that "smokeless gunpowder" had replaced black
powder when modern guns replaced muzzle loaders.
Which makes this idea especially dumb. Maybe they shot JFK with a
civil war Springfield muzzle loader and black powder??
Another conspiracy theory is that Oswald had not actually been the
one firing the gun, but had been set up.
A man fitting Oswald's description was seen firing from the 6th floor
window. Oswald's description was broadcast, and that's why he was
stopped by Officer Tibbets (whom he certainly killed).
If you accept the possibility
that the first shot ricoshetted, then the first two shots actually
missed. This doesn't seem as though it would be the work of a
professional.
Oswald wasn't a professional, though he did shoot well. His weapon
wasn't a pro weapon.
Oswald had tried to kill a general some months previously and had
missed with the one shot he fired. If this was his trial run, an
obvious lesson would be not to count on only one shot.
Yep. Read _Case Closed_
SBH
Thanks to the FOIA we can finally see the truth of what occurred with the
assassination of JKF. It was a conspiracy and it was film fraud.
http://www.users.bigpond.com/costella/jfk/intro/fast.html
You can even observe the autopsy pictures at the next link. It shows the back
of JFK's head blown out, what is seen at the lower neck part of the front of
his neck. Their report says that's where they made an incision to place an air
tube. But they forgot to mention that there was a bullet hole in his clothes by
his shirt and tie right at that location.
When a bullet hits something it makes a small entrance hole and a large
exit hole. The entrance hole had to have been from the front of JFK in the
lower part of his neck and the exit wound at the upper part of his head. The
autopsy shows half his brains blown out in the back of his head.
Oswald couldn't have shot out the back of JFK's head if the exit wound was
the back of his head. And a bullet doesn't bounce off Connally and then enters
JFK's neck and blows out JFK's head.
It wasn't the secret service driver of the limo because there was a bullet
proof shield seen in front of Connally and his wife and JKF and his wife. It
wasn't someone shooting a gun out in the lawn area because the entrance wound
is from the front of JFK.
If you observe the film, you can observe Jackie Kennedy lean over and
appears to hug JFK BEFORE any shots were heard, then you see what appears to be
something black fuzzy in her left hand pointing upper through the neck of JFK,
then the next thing you see in the film is JFK's head fly backward and fake red
paint on the film fly forward as his head flies backward. Then Jackie
Kennedy's hand lowers. Everyone else seems surprized in the limo except Jackie
face. She then crawls out of the limo.
Later they dig up JFK's grave and dump him in the ocean. Why? I guess so
they can't reexamine him for the true cause of his death. There were about 20
witnesses to what they saw and they all died by accident, suicide or by some
other unknown person.
Right before Kennedy was assassinated, there were reports that he was going
to expose some type of illegal activity in the CIA and some other government
working in the USA possibly that had to do with drugs and Aliens from outer
space. They classified some type of research at Rosewell as super secret when
UFO's were sighted there.
Reports state that JFK was going to expose all the illegal activity to the
public that was occurring internally, so a conspiracy was made by what appears
to be part of his own US govenrment workers like part of the CIA etc... . Why
is it the CIA throughout history never has one court prosecution? And they can
order assassinations of foreign officials like those in Cuba? They could have
just as easily ordered the assassination of JFK. In fact, they did the same
thing to Bin Ladin who was trained by the CIA to stop the Russian invasion of
Afghanistan. It shows on the TV news that there was an order to assassinate Bin
Laden BEFORE the World Trade Center 911 bombings.
Bin Laden states a Declaration of War against the US right before the World
Trade Center Bombing and Pentagon. He states on the document reasons for war.
He says 600,000 children died because of some type of certain US government (
probably CIA) dealings in Arab countries which was for oil and the invasion of
two Holy Places. Other documents, (declassified and FOIA) show on Internet that
Bin Laden refused to assist certain US government officials ( probably CIA) in
taking the Arab Oil and they woundn't leave the 2 Holy Places in Arab
countries.
If you read NATO rules of war, any invasion of one country that makes up a
whole of many countries is to be taken as a war against all their countries.
Bin Laden appears to use the rules of NATO against the US. The next thing that
happened was the NSA computers shut down ( according to a TV news report) which
allowed time or an "open window" for attack of the World Trade Center and the
Pentagon. How could Bin Laden have shut the NSA computers down? He wasn't that
powerful. The Democrats and Senator John Kerry state George Bush new there was
a suspicion of a planned attack of the World Trade Center, but ignored it. Why?
Some say that this would give the US a way to blame Bin Laden for all the Arab
problems including the Declaration of War against the US by the Arabs.
Then Saddam Hussein is brought into this and was only involved in a UN
inspection of WMD. Then the Bush Administration Bombs Iraq without UN approval.
And then the US still didn't find any WMD there.
Then Dirty Bombs were used DU ( Depleted Uranium). These are bombs filled
with radioactive chemicals that kills people within a few months on a mass
scale. This time of weapon is also against the UN's rules of war and the
Geneva Conventions rules of war. They say no weapons can be used like
biological, chemical or nuclear that causes the mass destruction of many
innocent people not part of the war.
Reports state CIA ordered the abuse of Iraq prisoners, and ONLY the
military personal was prosecuted NOT the CIA. And other reports state that
about 200,000 US troops either died or was treated for cancer. Well
radioactivity causes cancer. Why wasn't the US troops properly prepared with
the right gear to prevent radiation exposure? Why were these type bombs used to
start with? Why was the war in Iraq started to start with? I think it was
mostly for the oil because the people in Iraq shown on the news keep blowing
up the oil there to keep the US from getting it.
http://www.jfklancer.com/aphotos.html
The UN Secretary General already stated the Iraq war was illegal. He has
the power to take this to the World Court if he wants to. But he isn't? Why? Is
the CIA going to assassinate him if he does? Or what?
I think the CIA should be dismantled too, like one Senator said in
Congress. But instead the Bush Administration ordered more power given to the
CIA. Then they planed to put implants on soldiers to find out where they were.
But this could also tell the enemy where they are too. The UN and the Geneva
Conventions Rules of war says no type of tatoo can be used to identify a
soldier. Well and implant is like a tatoo.
The US has already been found guilty by the World Court on many other
cases. I know I checked their cases. And now look at all of this illegal war
activity under the Bush Administration.
I am for the US, the UN and the Geneva Convention Rules of War. This is only
certain people in the US doing all of this illegal activity. They should be the
ones taking responsibility for this.
Smart's Alt. Physics News Group
http://pub39.bravenet.com/forum/show.php?usernum=3320272813&cpv=1
S. Enterprize (Science Journal)
http://smart1234.s-enterprize.com/
.
|
|
|
| User: "S. Enterprize Company" |
|
| Title: Re: Resolving Kennedy's Assassination |
12 Oct 2004 06:15:21 AM |
|
|
brodix@earthlink.net (brodix) wrote in message
news:<a09976c7.0410101558.351991e6@posting.google.com>...
Adding to the conspiracy aspect of this forum...
There were three primary wounds and two secondary wounds.
The first shot struck Kennedy in the upper back and travelled at an
upward trajectory, exiting out his neck.
That's actually a downward trajectory, as it was the extreme upper
back, and JFK tended to slump.
I don't recall any
description of internal damage, but there were minor fragment wounds
around the entry wound. This bullet apparently lodged in the window
frame, next to the rearview mirror.
No. Those fragments were tiny, and could just as easily have been
fragments from the final shot to the head, which fragmented badly.
It seems likely that this bullet did not hit Kennedy directly, but
struck directly behind him and ricoshetted at an upward angle.
No, it hit him directly, as shown by the very tiny and round entry
hole. The exit hole was destoyed by the trach, but witnesses testimony
suggests it was round as well.
All these are probably the second shot Oswald fired. His first no
doubt hit a tree limb on the oak, and probably then the curb and
underpass down the street. I recommend a good reading of G. Posner's
_Case Closed_. (Posner only screws up once-- there is a picture
proving that 15 yo Oswald was in the Civil Air Patrol with Ferrie in
1955, weird as that may be).
The second shot struck Connelly in the back and grazed a rib as it
was exiting. This bullet then entered his leg and fell out on the
hopital gurney. It was this bullet that the Warren Commision claimed
had hit both Kennedy and Connelly, thus earning the "magic bullet"
designation because it was in such good condition.
No, the magic moniker was because of a screwup in doing angles. But
when you get everybody placed right, it works. See Case Closed.
Even Connelly didn't believe this. According to an interview with Dan
Rather that I saw, he said that after the first shot, he turned around
and saw that Kennedy was hit. He turned back forward and was struck.
He also said the third shot was louder than the first two.
Alas, the Zapruder film shows Connelly is wrong. His lapel flips up
after the bullet goes through his chest, and you can see this before
JFK even exits from being hidden behind the Stemmons sign (where you
see he's been shot also). So Connelly is hit HERE, and it's with the
same bullet that hits JFK through the neck. Connelly doesn't glance
back until after this. Yes, it takes Connelly a few tenths of a second
to react to being shot, and probably even to feel it. But that's how
getting shot is.
One of the first two bullets also went through Kennedy's right wrist.
No, that's Connelly's wrist, and it's the same magic bullet.
The third shot struck Kennedy in the head and caused massive damage
to the right side. There were fragments in his brain that showed up on
x-rays taken at the hospital.
Presuming this bullet struck him in the back of the head. It must
have fragmented on contact.
Correct.
So there were five wounds. Four were the normal entry/exist wounds
expected of a high-powered military round of the sort used in Oswald's
rifle. The last one was caused by a round that fragmented completely
on contact.
No. Tests with 6.5 mm ammo show that even 140 gr FMJ slugs like Oswald
used, can fragment completely in hitting something hard like a skull.
And yet can also go through a slabs of meat without being deformed,
but simply slowing a lot. Which happened with the JFK-neck
Connolly-chest bullet.
Consider that one of the memorable clues was that on the motorcycle
dictagraph recording, the were three clear spikes that were clearly
the result of gunshots, but a seventh of a second after the third
shot, there was another spike that wasn't quite as prominant. This was
held up as evidence of a fourth shot.
The dictabelt contains conversation that proves it didn't happen at
the time of the shooting, but later. It's irrelevent.
Earlier this summer, there was an episode of Histories Mysteries that
was about the various photographers on the scene and the information
that could be gleaned from them and their pictures. Toward the end of
the show, one of them was describing how shocked he was as it
happened. Then he said that when he felt the pressure of the third
shot on his face, he knew it was for real.
Of the conspiracy theories, the main contention has been that there
was a shooter on the grassy knoll, behind the fence. The primary
reason for this was because the acoustics made it sound as if the
third shot had come from a different location and it was the closest
possibility.
Another reason was an apparent puff of smoke in one of the pictures.
It should be noted that "smokeless gunpowder" had replaced black
powder when modern guns replaced muzzle loaders.
Which makes this idea especially dumb. Maybe they shot JFK with a
civil war Springfield muzzle loader and black powder??
Another conspiracy theory is that Oswald had not actually been the
one firing the gun, but had been set up.
A man fitting Oswald's description was seen firing from the 6th floor
window. Oswald's description was broadcast, and that's why he was
stopped by Officer Tibbets (whom he certainly killed).
If you accept the possibility
that the first shot ricoshetted, then the first two shots actually
missed. This doesn't seem as though it would be the work of a
professional.
Oswald wasn't a professional, though he did shoot well. His weapon
wasn't a pro weapon.
Oswald had tried to kill a general some months previously and had
missed with the one shot he fired. If this was his trial run, an
obvious lesson would be not to count on only one shot.
Yep. Read _Case Closed_
SBH
Thanks to the FOIA we can finally see the truth of what occurred with the
assassination of JKF. It was a conspiracy and it was film fraud.
http://www.users.bigpond.com/costella/jfk/intro/fast.html
You can even observe the autopsy pictures at the next link. It shows the
back
of JFK's head blown out, what is seen at the lower neck part of the front of
his neck. Their report says that's where they made an incision to place an
air
tube. But they forgot to mention that there was a bullet hole in his clothes
by
his shirt and tie right at that location.
When a bullet hits something it makes a small entrance hole and a large
exit hole. The entrance hole had to have been from the front of JFK in the
lower part of his neck and the exit wound at the upper part of his head. The
autopsy shows half his brains blown out in the back of his head.
Oswald couldn't have shot out the back of JFK's head if the exit wound was
the back of his head. And a bullet doesn't bounce off Connally and then
enters
JFK's neck and blows out JFK's head.
It wasn't the secret service driver of the limo because there was a
bullet
proof shield seen in front of Connally and his wife and JKF and his wife. It
wasn't someone shooting a gun out in the lawn area because the entrance wound
is from the front of JFK.
If you observe the film, you can observe Jackie Kennedy lean over and
appears to hug JFK BEFORE any shots were heard, then you see what appears to
be
something black fuzzy in her left hand pointing upper through the neck of
JFK,
then the next thing you see in the film is JFK's head fly backward and fake
red
paint on the film fly forward as his head flies backward. Then Jackie
Kennedy's hand lowers. Everyone else seems surprized in the limo except
Jackie
face. She then crawls out of the limo.
Later they dig up JFK's grave and dump him in the ocean. Why? I guess so
they can't reexamine him for the true cause of his death. There were about 20
witnesses to what they saw and they all died by accident, suicide or by some
other unknown person.
Right before Kennedy was assassinated, there were reports that he was
going
to expose some type of illegal activity in the CIA and some other government
working in the USA possibly that had to do with drugs and Aliens from outer
space. They classified some type of research at Rosewell as super secret when
UFO's were sighted there.
Reports state that JFK was going to expose all the illegal activity to
the
public that was occurring internally, so a conspiracy was made by what
appears
to be part of his own US govenrment workers like part of the CIA etc... . Why
is it the CIA throughout history never has one court prosecution? And they
can
order assassinations of foreign officials like those in Cuba? They could have
just as easily ordered the assassination of JFK. In fact, they did the same
thing to Bin Ladin who was trained by the CIA to stop the Russian invasion of
Afghanistan. It shows on the TV news that there was an order to assassinate
Bin
Laden BEFORE the World Trade Center 911 bombings.
Bin Laden states a Declaration of War against the US right before the
World
Trade Center Bombing and Pentagon. He states on the document reasons for war.
He says 600,000 children died because of some type of certain US government (
probably CIA) dealings in Arab countries which was for oil and the invasion
of
two Holy Places. Other documents, (declassified and FOIA) show on Internet
that
Bin Laden refused to assist certain US government officials ( probably CIA)
in
taking the Arab Oil and they woundn't leave the 2 Holy Places in Arab
countries.
If you read NATO rules of war, any invasion of one country that makes up
a
whole of many countries is to be taken as a war against all their countries.
Bin Laden appears to use the rules of NATO against the US. The next thing
that
happened was the NSA computers shut down ( according to a TV news report)
which
allowed time or an "open window" for attack of the World Trade Center and the
Pentagon. How could Bin Laden have shut the NSA computers down? He wasn't
that
powerful. The Democrats and Senator John Kerry state George Bush new there
was
a suspicion of a planned attack of the World Trade Center, but ignored it.
Why?
Some say that this would give the US a way to blame Bin Laden for all the
Arab
problems including the Declaration of War against the US by the Arabs.
Then Saddam Hussein is brought into this and was only involved in a UN
inspection of WMD. Then the Bush Administration Bombs Iraq without UN
approval.
And then the US still didn't find any WMD there.
Then Dirty Bombs were used DU ( Depleted Uranium). These are bombs filled
with radioactive chemicals that kills people within a few months on a mass
scale. This time of weapon is also against the UN's rules of war and the
Geneva Conventions rules of war. They say no weapons can be used like
biological, chemical or nuclear that causes the mass destruction of many
innocent people not part of the war.
Reports state CIA ordered the abuse of Iraq prisoners, and ONLY the
military personal was prosecuted NOT the CIA. And other reports state that
about 200,000 US troops either died or was treated for cancer. Well
radioactivity causes cancer. Why wasn't the US troops properly prepared with
the right gear to prevent radiation exposure? Why were these type bombs used
to
start with? Why was the war in Iraq started to start with? I think it was
mostly for the oil because the people in Iraq shown on the news keep blowing
up the oil there to keep the US from getting it.
http://www.jfklancer.com/aphotos.html
The UN Secretary General already stated the Iraq war was illegal. He has
the power to take this to the World Court if he wants to. But he isn't? Why?
Is
the CIA going to assassinate him if he does? Or what?
I think the CIA should be dismantled too, like one Senator said in
Congress. But instead the Bush Administration ordered more power given to the
CIA. Then they planed to put implants on soldiers to find out where they
were.
But this could also tell the enemy where they are too. The UN and the Geneva
Conventions Rules of war says no type of tatoo can be used to identify a
soldier. Well and implant is like a tatoo.
The US has already been found guilty by the World Court on many other
cases. I know I checked their cases. And now look at all of this illegal war
activity under the Bush Administration.
I am for the US, the UN and the Geneva Convention Rules of War. This is
only
certain people in the US doing all of this illegal activity. They should be
the
ones taking responsibility for this.
According to UN, NATO and the Geneva Rules of War, no country is to develop,
stockpile or use weapons of mass destruction ( WMD), which includes biological,
chemical and nuclear, WMD. So why was it only Iraq was inspected for this by
the UN? Shouldn't all countries be made to remove these weapons too, which
includes Russia? Also underground nuclear bomb testing isn't suppost to be used
anymore, why are some countries are still doing this?
http://people.howstuffworks.com/rules-of-war7.htm
I am all in favor of removing ALL Nuclear Weapons. What do we need them for?
If used, it could destroy millions (or billions) of people that may not even be
part of the war and it might even destroy this planet.
I say the UN should inspect all countries including the US and Russia, for
WMD and have them removed. Maybe conventional warfare is ok, that is focused
ONLY on a few trouble makers in self defense. But why risk the destruction of
millions of men, women, children, elderly, and disabled for just a few "bad
apples" in government.
I say peacefully demostrate and vote against ALL WMD in ALL countries, not
just Iraq.
Smart's Alt. Physics News Group
http://pub39.bravenet.com/forum/show.php?usernum=3320272813&cpv=1
S. Enterprize (Science Journal)
http://smart1234.s-enterprize.com/
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "brodix" |
|
| Title: Re: Resolving Kennedy's Assassination |
12 Oct 2004 07:13:32 PM |
|
|
Steve,
That's actually a downward trajectory, as it was the extreme upper
back, and JFK tended to slump.
You are apparently for better read on this then I am, so I'm more
then willing to give you the benefit of the doubt, but... I'm not
quite sure I buy a slump. He was sitting back in a car seat, so
slumping to the point this was even a flat trajectory would require
leaning forward
No. Those fragments were tiny, and could just as easily have been
fragments from the final shot to the head, which fragmented badly.
Could have been.
No, it hit him directly, as shown by the very tiny and round entry
hole. The exit hole was destoyed by the trach, but witnesses testimony
suggests it was round as well.
This would suggest a direct hit, but not conclusive proof.
All these are probably the second shot Oswald fired. His first no
doubt hit a tree limb on the oak, and probably then the curb and
underpass down the street. I recommend a good reading of G. Posner's
_Case Closed_. (Posner only screws up once-- there is a picture
proving that 15 yo Oswald was in the Civil Air Patrol with Ferrie in
1955, weird as that may be).
I admit I haven't read everything there is and don't have much time
to.
Alas, the Zapruder film shows Connelly is wrong. His lapel flips up
after the bullet goes through his chest, and you can see this before
JFK even exits from being hidden behind the Stemmons sign (where you
see he's been shot also). So Connelly is hit HERE, and it's with the
same bullet that hits JFK through the neck. Connelly doesn't glance
back until after this. Yes, it takes Connelly a few tenths of a second
to react to being shot, and probably even to feel it. But that's how
getting shot is.
I have some degree of trouble believing this. While I don't have any
experience with being shot, I do have a fair amount of experience with
pain and the electrical impluses of shock are paralyzing to the parts
of the body affected, even if the brain is clear. It might be more
believable if Connally was struck entirely on soft tissue, but the
bullet apparently hit a rib and was slightly deflected, traveling
along the rib a short way before existing. It then entered his leg.
The idea that he simply didn't notice this for the few seconds it took
him to turn around, look back and turn back around doesn't seem
possible.
The third shot struck Kennedy in the head and caused massive damage
to the right side. There were fragments in his brain that showed up on
x-rays taken at the hospital.
Presuming this bullet struck him in the back of the head. It must
have fragmented on contact.
Correct.
So there were five wounds. Four were the normal entry/exist wounds
expected of a high-powered military round of the sort used in Oswald's
rifle. The last one was caused by a round that fragmented completely
on contact.
No. Tests with 6.5 mm ammo show that even 140 gr FMJ slugs like Oswald
used, can fragment completely in hitting something hard like a skull.
And yet can also go through a slabs of meat without being deformed,
but simply slowing a lot. Which happened with the JFK-neck
Connolly-chest bullet.
The back of the skull is no thicker then Connally's wrist or rib and
you are arguing the "magic bullet" went through both and it was hardly
deformed.
The dictabelt contains conversation that proves it didn't happen at
the time of the shooting, but later. It's irrelevent.
This isn't one I've heard, but that doesn't mean anything.
Other then interpretation of various details, we both agree it was Oswald. Though I must say that I'd started with the assumption that it was a conspiracy.
regards,
brodix
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Zincoprast" |
|
| Title: Re: Resolving Kennedy's Assassination |
11 Oct 2004 12:03:22 AM |
|
|
Wrong group.
Please Post in "alt.kennedy.assassination"
.
|
|
|
| User: "brodix" |
|
| Title: Re: Resolving Kennedy's Assassination |
11 Oct 2004 05:46:07 PM |
|
|
"Zincoprast" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message news:<2suig5F1pirrcU1@uni-berlin.de>...
Wrong group.
Please Post in "alt.kennedy.assassination"
I apologize. All the 9/11 posting seemed out of order, so I piled on.
I will try it on that posting, although discussing the subject is
like talking religion. Either no one is interested(for good reason),
or their opinions are not going to be swayed.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "tj Frazir" |
|
| Title: Re: Resolving Kennedy's Assassination |
13 Oct 2004 09:06:40 PM |
|
|
Jhonson the vice prez had him shot.
the entire story was a setup.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Maleki" |
|
| Title: Re: Resolving Kennedy's Assassination |
14 Oct 2004 11:40:31 AM |
|
|
On Wed, 13 Oct 2004 22:06:40 -0400, tj Frazir wrote:
Jhonson the vice prez had him shot.
the entire story was a setup.
I had to dig this on my own a long time ago. Kennedy had
started talking about pulling out of Vietnam (after initial
expanding and starting of that war), and the military supply
industries in USA wanted the war, the profit. Politics in
USA is a matter of which businesses usurp the huge yearly
pile of people's money; i.e., who gets the easy money big
time.
I remember what Soviet Union gave, as the reason for the
assassination, shortly after it took place in the sixties.
To this day that's the best answer I've seen. They believed
the assassination was carried out by, "the extreme right
elements" in the American politics. Anything other than or
in addition to that fact is just *****.
--
Israel is a "state" in the way that a porn-star is
"actress."
"Maleki"
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Resolving Kennedy's Assassination |
14 Oct 2004 12:11:52 PM |
|
|
Maleki <maleki_m_@hotmail.com> wrote:
I had to dig this on my own a long time ago. Kennedy had
started talking about pulling out of Vietnam (after initial
expanding and starting of that war), and the military supply
industries in USA wanted the war, the profit. Politics in
USA is a matter of which businesses usurp the huge yearly
pile of people's money; i.e., who gets the easy money big
time.
I remember what Soviet Union gave, as the reason for the
assassination, shortly after it took place in the sixties.
To this day that's the best answer I've seen. They believed
the assassination was carried out by, "the extreme right
elements" in the American politics. Anything other than or
in addition to that fact is just *****.
--
Israel is a "state" in the way that a porn-star is
"actress."
"Maleki"
It was Truman that first pledged that the United States would stand
by its South Vietnamese allies.
And it was Eisenhower that first sent military advisors and the CIA to
South Vietnam.
Your position on the start and cause of the war is simplistic.
--
Jim Pennino
Remove -spam-sux to reply.
.
|
|
|
| User: "tadchem" |
|
| Title: Re: Resolving Kennedy's Assassination |
15 Oct 2004 08:17:35 AM |
|
|
Off-topic, but interesting, so I will comment.
jimp@specsol-spam-sux.com wrote in message news:<ckmc0o$d60$1@mail.specsol.com>...
Maleki <maleki_m_@hotmail.com> wrote:
<snip>
Israel is a "state" in the way that a porn-star is
"actress."
Israel's existence is as legitimate as anything can be that was done
by the UN.
http://www.cet.edu/earthinfo/meast/israel/IPtopic3.html
It was Truman that first pledged that the United States would stand
by its South Vietnamese allies.
And it was Eisenhower that first sent military advisors and the CIA to
South Vietnam.
Your position on the start and cause of the war is simplistic.
As early as 1943 it was obvious that France was having trouble with
their colony in Indochina:
http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/fdrjs.htm
FDR suggested independence for Indochina in 1944:
http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/fdrch.htm
Vietnam declared independence in 1945:
http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/vietdec.htm
France acknowledged this in 1946:
http://coombs.anu.edu.au/~vern/van_kien/indagree.html
US acknowledges independence of Laos, Cambodia, and Viet Nam in 1950:
http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/usrecog.htm
Warfare in Vietnam had been draining the French military for 5-6 years
by 1951:
http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/truplev2.htm
(Only the French may know why their army remained in Viet Nam for
years after acknowledging Vietnamese independence.)
The disasterous battle at Dien Bien Phu, ending May 7, 1954, was
arguably the last major engagement of the French Army:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Dien_Bien_Phu
France threw in the towel at the Geneva Accords in July, 1954:
http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/genevacc.htm
The South East Asia Treaty Organization was formed September 8, 1954
(Eisenhower administration, but initially planned under Truman) as an
Asia-Pacific co-treaty to NATO, CENTO, and the OAS.
http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/SEATO
The conflicts in Viet Nam and Cambodia escalated primarily because
lack of unanimity among the participants in the treaty prevented early
intervention.
So Ike decided to act outside the treaty:
http://vietnam.vassar.edu/doc5.html
Again, France chose not to support her former allies as her army had
been literally decimated in 1954.
Tom Davidson
Richmond, VA
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Maleki" |
|
| Title: Re: Resolving Kennedy's Assassination |
14 Oct 2004 01:22:35 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 14 Oct 2004 17:11:52 +0000 (UTC),
jimp@specsol-spam-sux.com wrote:
Maleki <maleki_m_@hotmail.com> wrote:
I had to dig this on my own a long time ago. Kennedy had
started talking about pulling out of Vietnam (after initial
expanding and starting of that war), and the military supply
industries in USA wanted the war, the profit. Politics in
USA is a matter of which businesses usurp the huge yearly
pile of people's money; i.e., who gets the easy money big
time.
I remember what Soviet Union gave, as the reason for the
assassination, shortly after it took place in the sixties.
To this day that's the best answer I've seen. They believed
the assassination was carried out by, "the extreme right
elements" in the American politics. Anything other than or
in addition to that fact is just *****.
--
Israel is a "state" in the way that a porn-star is
"actress."
"Maleki"
It was Truman that first pledged that the United States would stand
by its South Vietnamese allies.
And it was Eisenhower that first sent military advisors and the CIA to
South Vietnam.
Your position on the start and cause of the war is simplistic.
--
Jim Pennino
Remove -spam-sux to reply.
Vietnam war "officially" began during the Kennedy
administration. A "plan" is different from a "war".
Kennedy encouraged and virtually created it all the way from
mere talk to a real war. But he also was found to want to
limit it in time span to just a couple of years at most.
That's where he crossed the American big business. After
losing hope for a war in Cuba, the big business wanted
Vietnam war very badly because Soviet Union was absent in
there and it would be _years_ before China's resolve would
be felt. Years of astronomical profit for supplier
industries.
--
mArgir ro Akharesh mAr mikosheh.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Resolving Kennedy's Assassination |
14 Oct 2004 02:31:35 PM |
|
|
Maleki <maleki_m_@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 14 Oct 2004 17:11:52 +0000 (UTC),
jimp@specsol-spam-sux.com wrote:
It was Truman that first pledged that the United States would stand
by its South Vietnamese allies.
And it was Eisenhower that first sent military advisors and the CIA to
South Vietnam.
Your position on the start and cause of the war is simplistic.
--
Jim Pennino
Remove -spam-sux to reply.
Vietnam war "officially" began during the Kennedy
administration. A "plan" is different from a "war".
Since there never was a declaration of war, the "war" never "officially"
existed at all.
If you want to call the "official" start the first use of US personnel,
then it was under Eisenhower.
If you want to call the "official" start the first act of Congress on
the matter, then it was under Johnson and the Gulf of Tonkin resolution.
Kennedy encouraged and virtually created it all the way from
mere talk to a real war. But he also was found to want to
limit it in time span to just a couple of years at most.
That's where he crossed the American big business. After
losing hope for a war in Cuba, the big business wanted
Vietnam war very badly because Soviet Union was absent in
there and it would be _years_ before China's resolve would
be felt. Years of astronomical profit for supplier
industries.
A war in Cuba would have been over in weeks at the most unless the Soviet
Union got involved, which no one at the time would have been willing
to risk so soon after the missile crisis. No profit for "big business"
in a 3 week war.
Ignoring the ignorant screed about "big business", perhaps the best summary
of presidential involvement can be found at
http://www.english.uiuc.edu/maps/vietnam/causes.htm
"Along with the larger structural and ideological causes of the war in
Vietnam, the experience, personality, and temperament of each president
played a role in deepening the U.S. commitment. Dwight Eisenhower restrained
U.S. involvement because, having commanded troops in battle, he doubted the
United States could fight a land war in Southeast Asia. The youthful John
Kennedy, on the other hand, felt he had to prove his resolve to the American
people and his Communist adversaries, especially in the aftermath of several
foreign policy blunders early in his administration. Lyndon Johnson saw the
Vietnam War as a test of his mettle, as a Southerner and as a man. He
exhorted his soldiers to "nail the coonskin to the wall" in Vietnam,
likening victory to a successful hunting expedition."
The ideology conflict between the US and the Communist world had a shooting
conflict in Vietnam pretty much guaranteed by 1947 no matter who became
president.
As far as Kennedy wanting to limit the war to a couple of years, he was
fully behind the war until Thich Quang Due set himself on fire in the
middle of Saigon in June 1963. The final clincher for Kennedy was when the
CIA hired generals killed Ngo Dinh Diem in spite of their promises to let
him leave the country.
It was after the last incident he told Kenneth O'Donnell and Mike Mansfield
that he intended to get out of Vietnam.
Diem and Kennedy both died in November 1963 which means that if Kennedy
was killed because he had decided to get out of Vietnam, the plotters had
at best a few weeks to agree to the idea and put together a plan to do it.
If one wants to believe Kennedy was killed because of his position on an
issue, a much better candidate for consiracy theorists would be his
stand on civil rights, which was pretty consistent all the time he was
in office and angered a lot of powerful people of the time.
--
Jim Pennino
Remove -spam-sux to reply.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Maleki" |
|
| Title: Re: Resolving Kennedy's Assassination |
15 Oct 2004 08:21:49 AM |
|
|
On Thu, 14 Oct 2004 19:31:35 +0000 (UTC),
jimp@specsol-spam-sux.com wrote:
Maleki <maleki_m_@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 14 Oct 2004 17:11:52 +0000 (UTC),
jimp@specsol-spam-sux.com wrote:
It was Truman that first pledged that the United States would stand
by its South Vietnamese allies.
And it was Eisenhower that first sent military advisors and the CIA to
South Vietnam.
Your position on the start and cause of the war is simplistic.
--
Jim Pennino
Remove -spam-sux to reply.
Vietnam war "officially" began during the Kennedy
administration. A "plan" is different from a "war".
Since there never was a declaration of war, the "war" never "officially"
existed at all.
If you want to call the "official" start the first use of US personnel,
then it was under Eisenhower.
If you want to call the "official" start the first act of Congress on
the matter, then it was under Johnson and the Gulf of Tonkin resolution.
Kennedy encouraged and virtually created it all the way from
mere talk to a real war. But he also was found to want to
limit it in time span to just a couple of years at most.
That's where he crossed the American big business. After
losing hope for a war in Cuba, the big business wanted
Vietnam war very badly because Soviet Union was absent in
there and it would be _years_ before China's resolve would
be felt. Years of astronomical profit for supplier
industries.
A war in Cuba would have been over in weeks at the most unless the Soviet
Union got involved, which no one at the time would have been willing
to risk so soon after the missile crisis. No profit for "big business"
in a 3 week war.
Ignoring the ignorant screed about "big business", perhaps the best summary
of presidential involvement can be found at
http://www.english.uiuc.edu/maps/vietnam/causes.htm
"Along with the larger structural and ideological causes of the war in
Vietnam, the experience, personality, and temperament of each president
played a role in deepening the U.S. commitment. Dwight Eisenhower restrained
U.S. involvement because, having commanded troops in battle, he doubted the
United States could fight a land war in Southeast Asia. The youthful John
Kennedy, on the other hand, felt he had to prove his resolve to the American
people and his Communist adversaries, especially in the aftermath of several
foreign policy blunders early in his administration. Lyndon Johnson saw the
Vietnam War as a test of his mettle, as a Southerner and as a man. He
exhorted his soldiers to "nail the coonskin to the wall" in Vietnam,
likening victory to a successful hunting expedition."
The ideology conflict between the US and the Communist world had a shooting
conflict in Vietnam pretty much guaranteed by 1947 no matter who became
president.
As far as Kennedy wanting to limit the war to a couple of years, he was
fully behind the war until Thich Quang Due set himself on fire in the
middle of Saigon in June 1963. The final clincher for Kennedy was when the
CIA hired generals killed Ngo Dinh Diem in spite of their promises to let
him leave the country.
It was after the last incident he told Kenneth O'Donnell and Mike Mansfield
that he intended to get out of Vietnam.
Diem and Kennedy both died in November 1963 which means that if Kennedy
was killed because he had decided to get out of Vietnam, the plotters had
at best a few weeks to agree to the idea and put together a plan to do it.
If one wants to believe Kennedy was killed because of his position on an
issue, a much better candidate for consiracy theorists would be his
stand on civil rights, which was pretty consistent all the time he was
in office and angered a lot of powerful people of the time.
--
Jim Pennino
Remove -spam-sux to reply.
I cut the crap, you don't. You have the facts more or less
right but this isn't enough. Anyway, if you're willing to go
as far as calling the recollection of my understanding of
that issue a "conspiracy theory" then you're just
ineffectual like most political wordsmiths.
Your reaction to my note about war also shows that you have
"obsessive thinking". I don't have time for you.
--
rownagh nabAshad safA hast.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Resolving Kennedy's Assassination |
15 Oct 2004 09:19:45 AM |
|
|
Maleki <maleki_m_@hotmail.com> wrote:
I cut the crap, you don't. You have the facts more or less
right but this isn't enough. Anyway, if you're willing to go
as far as calling the recollection of my understanding of
that issue a "conspiracy theory" then you're just
ineffectual like most political wordsmiths.
Care to point out where what I've said is "less than right"?
This is recent, recorded history; the events and dates are there for
anyone that can read to verify.
And yes, anyone that goes on and on about "big business" forcing a war
I would call a conspiracy theorist.
Your reaction to my note about war also shows that you have
"obsessive thinking". I don't have time for you.
Good; use the time to read some history.
--
Jim Pennino
Remove -spam-sux to reply.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Maleki" |
|
| Title: Re: Resolving Kennedy's Assassination |
15 Oct 2004 11:22:45 AM |
|
|
On Fri, 15 Oct 2004 14:19:45 +0000 (UTC),
jimp@specsol-spam-sux.com wrote:
Care to point out where what I've said is "less than right"?
Being right, as I said, is not enough. Truth, whole truth,
nothing but the truth, AND a physics background :-) You need
to reduce complex processes to the simplest form. My advice
to you in studying American politics is in its simplest
form. Just three words. Follow The Money.
--
na be hasabesh mishenAsim na be nasabesh.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Resolving Kennedy's Assassination |
15 Oct 2004 02:17:31 PM |
|
|
Maleki <maleki_m_@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, 15 Oct 2004 14:19:45 +0000 (UTC),
jimp@specsol-spam-sux.com wrote:
Care to point out where what I've said is "less than right"?
Being right, as I said, is not enough. Truth, whole truth,
nothing but the truth, AND a physics background :-) You need
to reduce complex processes to the simplest form. My advice
to you in studying American politics is in its simplest
form. Just three words. Follow The Money.
My advice to you is to grow up and stop spouting simplistict cliches.
--
Jim Pennino
Remove -spam-sux to reply.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Maleki" |
|
| Title: Re: Resolving Kennedy's Assassination |
15 Oct 2004 05:00:27 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 15 Oct 2004 19:17:31 +0000 (UTC),
jimp@specsol-spam-sux.com wrote:
Maleki <maleki_m_@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, 15 Oct 2004 14:19:45 +0000 (UTC),
jimp@specsol-spam-sux.com wrote:
Care to point out where what I've said is "less than right"?
Being right, as I said, is not enough. Truth, whole truth,
nothing but the truth, AND a physics background :-) You need
to reduce complex processes to the simplest form. My advice
to you in studying American politics is in its simplest
form. Just three words. Follow The Money.
My advice to you is to grow up and stop spouting simplistict cliches.
Hehe :) Beats a lot of wordsmithing crap, doesn't it.
--
mojassameh pAyin mikeshand va bAlA mikonand.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mark Fergerson" |
|
| Title: Re: Resolving Kennedy's Assassination |
15 Oct 2004 05:52:41 AM |
|
|
Maleki wrote:
On Thu, 14 Oct 2004 17:11:52 +0000 (UTC),
jimp@specsol-spam-sux.com wrote:
Maleki <maleki_m_@hotmail.com> wrote:
I had to dig this on my own a long time ago. Kennedy had
started talking about pulling out of Vietnam (after initial
expanding and starting of that war), and the military supply
industries in USA wanted the war, the profit. Politics in
USA is a matter of which businesses usurp the huge yearly
pile of people's money; i.e., who gets the easy money big
time.
I remember what Soviet Union gave, as the reason for the
assassination, shortly after it took place in the sixties.
To this day that's the best answer I've seen. They believed
the assassination was carried out by, "the extreme right
elements" in the American politics. Anything other than or
in addition to that fact is just *****.
--
Israel is a "state" in the way that a porn-star is
"actress."
"Maleki"
It was Truman that first pledged that the United States would stand
by its South Vietnamese allies.
And it was Eisenhower that first sent military advisors and the CIA to
South Vietnam.
Your position on the start and cause of the war is simplistic.
--
Jim Pennino
Remove -spam-sux to reply.
Vietnam war "officially" began during the Kennedy
administration. A "plan" is different from a "war".
Kennedy encouraged and virtually created it all the way from
mere talk to a real war. But he also was found to want to
limit it in time span to just a couple of years at most.
Odd, I don't recall Kennedy suggesting a time limit to the draft. If
he'd done that, your assertions would have more weight.
That's where he crossed the American big business. After
losing hope for a war in Cuba, the big business wanted
Vietnam war very badly because Soviet Union was absent in
there and it would be _years_ before China's resolve would
be felt. Years of astronomical profit for supplier
industries.
Fine, except it was (Republican) Nixon that actually put a stop to
it, and he wasn't assassinated. Yes, he was impeached, but not
completely disgraced, or he couldn't have been sent to China with any
hope of being taken seriously.
Mark L. Fergerson
.
|
|
|
| User: "brodix" |
|
| Title: Re: Resolving Kennedy's Assassination |
15 Oct 2004 11:00:35 AM |
|
|
As this is a physics forum, does anyone have any opinions on the
forensics of the incident, as opposed to political speculation?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mark Fergerson" |
|
| Title: Re: Resolving Kennedy's Assassination |
16 Oct 2004 01:58:05 AM |
|
|
brodix wrote:
As this is a physics forum, does anyone have any opinions on the
forensics of the incident, as opposed to political speculation?
Hard to form an opinion as most of the evidence is
suspect or "lost".
Mark L. Fergerson
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Maleki" |
|
| Title: Re: Resolving Kennedy's Assassination |
15 Oct 2004 08:46:53 AM |
|
|
On Fri, 15 Oct 2004 03:52:41 -0700, Mark Fergerson wrote:
Maleki wrote:
On Thu, 14 Oct 2004 17:11:52 +0000 (UTC),
jimp@specsol-spam-sux.com wrote:
Maleki <maleki_m_@hotmail.com> wrote:
I had to dig this on my own a long time ago. Kennedy had
started talking about pulling out of Vietnam (after initial
expanding and starting of that war), and the military supply
industries in USA wanted the war, the profit. Politics in
USA is a matter of which businesses usurp the huge yearly
pile of people's money; i.e., who gets the easy money big
time.
I remember what Soviet Union gave, as the reason for the
assassination, shortly after it took place in the sixties.
To this day that's the best answer I've seen. They believed
the assassination was carried out by, "the extreme right
elements" in the American politics. Anything other than or
in addition to that fact is just *****.
--
Israel is a "state" in the way that a porn-star is
"actress."
"Maleki"
It was Truman that first pledged that the United States would stand
by its South Vietnamese allies.
And it was Eisenhower that first sent military advisors and the CIA to
South Vietnam.
Your position on the start and cause of the war is simplistic.
--
Jim Pennino
Remove -spam-sux to reply.
Vietnam war "officially" began during the Kennedy
administration. A "plan" is different from a "war".
Kennedy encouraged and virtually created it all the way from
mere talk to a real war. But he also was found to want to
limit it in time span to just a couple of years at most.
Odd, I don't recall Kennedy suggesting a time limit to the draft. If
he'd done that, your assertions would have more weight.
My assertions are based on what I dug years ago, and I trust
myself on that. He didn't suggest a time limit. I distinctly
remember that I was convinced when searching the issue that
he had started talking about pulling the troops out at a
stage in war that was set to go on for many years. It was a
sudden and new development. The "two year" span was my own
estimate of what it would have taken (at most) to finish
that task had Kennedy stayed alive.
That's where he crossed the American big business. After
losing hope for a war in Cuba, the big business wanted
Vietnam war very badly because Soviet Union was absent in
there and it would be _years_ before China's resolve would
be felt. Years of astronomical profit for supplier
industries.
Fine, except it was (Republican) Nixon that actually put a stop to
it, and he wasn't assassinated. Yes, he was impeached, but not
completely disgraced, or he couldn't have been sent to China with any
hope of being taken seriously.
That was another era, another set of decision makers,
another set of business strategists, another set of options.
Now there was NASA to supply for, Middle East to sell to,
etc. There were other options for suppliers. In 63 Vietnam
was all they had. I didn't try to find it out for sure, but
Kennedy might have wanted to divert the demand for suppliers
from war material to space expenditures when he proposed
going to the moon. He might have seen this as the solution
to avoiding the war in Vietnam. Well, with Kennedy out of
the picture the suppliers got both Vietnam _and_ space. So
my view stands.
--
agar mA mosalmAnhA be ruze siyAh oftAde'im barAye
Anast ke mosalmAnAne esmi va farzi va te'orik
hastim, na mosalmAne "amali".
"Mehdi Bazargan"
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Resolving Kennedy's Assassination |
10 Oct 2004 07:36:04 PM |
|
|
brodix <brodix@earthlink.net> wrote:
<snip>
In Fredrick Forsythe's The Day of the Jackal, one of the plot devices
was that the assassin used explosive ammunition. It was manufactured
by drilling out the bullet and putting in a drop of mercury and
soldering it over. When the bullet struck its target, the mercury flew
forward, exploding the front of the bullet.
"The Day of the Jackal" is fiction.
Mercury bullets don't work for oh so many reasons; ordinary, easily
obtainable, hunting bullets work very well.
<rest snipped>
--
Jim Pennino
Remove -spam-sux to reply.
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
