JFK Assassination Poll

[funyun]

I've recently become pretty interested in the JFK assassination, and I'm just curious what some of your opinions are.

 

[MatthewG215]

Back and to the left.

 

[Glaz]

More than one gunman, conspiracy.

 

[zoe_uu]

More than one gunman, conspiracy

 

[funyun]

Back and to the left.

That movie is actually why I'm interested in the assassination now, tho it has some serious innacuracies in it.

 

[Hitokiri Shadow]

Conspiracy theories are nice, but I've never seen any proof. So I'll stick with "one gunman, no conspiracy" for now.

 

[funyun]

Conspiracy theories are nice, but I've never seen any proof. So I'll stick with "one gunman, no conspiracy" for now.

If u look at the actual ballistics evidence, two things r almost certain:

1: More than 3 bullets were fired
2: Bullets were fired from more than one location

If u trace Oswald's steps:

1: He probably was not one of the shooters, and most certainly not the only one
2: He was set up, based on where he goes and how he acts, even after being informed of the assassination

 

[Hitokiri Shadow]

Oh. Well, I wasn't alive during his assassination, and I really haven't taken an interest in it. Based on that info, there may have been more than one shooter, but... it hasn't been proven (yet). If more info ever turns up (which is doubtful) then I'll take interest in it and ponder how many shooters there were and whether or not there was a conspiracy.

 

[JeffreyLloyd]

This book did it for me.

The Killing of a President
Amazon

 

[MatthewG215]

If Oswald shot him from the warehouse, JFK couldnt have been pushed back and to the left.

 

[funyun]

If Oswald shot him from the warehouse, JFK couldnt have been pushed back and to the left.

Not to mention Oswald was a mediocre shot at best. The lone gunman theory would have us believe he made two hits (which sniper tests prove to be near impossible--even expert snipers failed to hit a stationary target on almost every try from the 6th floor, and each took over 6 seconds to recycle and shoot the 3 rounds) on JFK thru dense foliage. Also, apparently Oswald refused to take the easiest possible shot, as the motorcade was approaching the depository.

 

[Lucent]

Plus the weapon Oswald used was somewhat unreliable. I saw a special where they were trying to replicate the whole thing and the rifle kept misfiring before they got off all the shots.

 

[oldrooster]

Definatly more than one gunman, conspiracy.....

 

[kurabrhm]

More than one gunman, conspiracy

Agree, simply because the film JFK, which I found to be very compelling viewing , managed to influence my opinion on the most tragic assasination in US history. No offense to Lincoln historians though! Nor to King historians.

 

[kurabrhm]

America is a big strong nation founded on Republicanism surely, even though ideals are democratic, and so is the case with modern post colonial India. Both nations have experienced tragic assasinations of leaders. Any connection here>?

 

[funyun]

Agree, simply because the film JFK, which I found to be very compelling viewing , managed to influence my opinion on the most tragic assasination in US history. No offense to Lincoln historians though! Nor to King historians.

While JFK is a great movie, and indeed compelling, u have to take everything in that movie with a grain of salt. It, along with personal research, convinced me that there was a conspiracy and that Oswald was a patsy, but I don't buy the actual conspiracy presented in the movie. For instance, Dave Ferrie never really confessed anything.

 

[jayem]

I'm not an expert on the Kennedy assasination by any means. When I was in medical training in the mid 70's, one of my professors had been a surgical intern at Parkland Hospital, and was actually in the ER when JFK was brought in. He said there was no doubt, to anyone who saw the wound, that the fatal shot came from behind. About 9 or 10 years ago, the naval pathologist who performed Kennedy's autopsy was interviewed in JAMA. All the forensic evidence--x-rays, dissection of the head, beveling of the cranial bone, confirmed that the fatal bullet came from behind, and blew out the back and top of the head. This doesn't mean there was no conspiracy, or other gunmen. But if I recall, the bullet that was recovered on the gurney matched the rifle found in the building, and Oswald's prints were on the rifle. He definitely fired that rifle.

 

[TScott]

I'm not an expert on the Kennedy assasination by any means. When I was in medical training in the mid 70's, one of my professors had been a surgical intern at Parkland Hospital, and was actually in the ER when JFK was brought in. He said there was no doubt, to anyone who saw the wound, that the fatal shot came from behind. About 9 or 10 years ago, the naval pathologist who performed Kennedy's autopsy was interviewed in JAMA. All the forensic evidence--x-rays, dissection of the head, beveling of the cranial bone, confirmed that the fatal bullet came from behind, and blew out the back and top of the head. This doesn't mean there was no conspiracy, or other gunmen. But if I recall, the bullet that was recovered on the gurney matched the rifle found in the building, and Oswald's prints were on the rifle. He definitely fired that rifle.

Yes, but therein lies the problem. The official version has only two shots fired because in the time frame allowed there was only time to fire two shots with the Italian rifle. We know for a fact that one shot hit Kennedy in the throat and we know that one hit him in the head. We also know that if there were only two shots that the first one that hit Kennedy in the throat would have also had to hit Connally and shatter several of his bones. The bullet found on the gurney was not only completely intact, it showed no signs of having done the damage that either of the bullets we know were fired could have done. Connely claims that the first shot caused him to turn around and that was when he was hit, then a split second later Kennedy's head exploded.

 

[funyun]

I'm not an expert on the Kennedy assasination by any means. When I was in medical training in the mid 70's, one of my professors had been a surgical intern at Parkland Hospital, and was actually in the ER when JFK was brought in. He said there was no doubt, to anyone who saw the wound, that the fatal shot came from behind.

Back.......and to the left.....

* John Stringer reported that the THROAT WOUND was probed. This is key because it's further evidence the autopsy doctors were lying when they testified they were not aware of the throat wound until after the autopsy when Dr. Humes called Dallas and spoke with Dr. Perry.

* White House photographer Robert Knudsen told the HSCA that the probe went DOWNWARD from the throat wound, which means that if the throat wound was the exit point for the back wound, then the back wound was LOWER than the throat wound. Knudsen assisted with the handling of the autopsy photos, and may have been present at the autopsy. The fact that the back wound was lower than the throat wound destroys the single-bullet theory.

* Dr. Pierre Finck, the only forensic pathologist at the autopsy, confirmed to the ARRB that there was a fragment trail that went from a point near the external occipital protuberance (EOP) UPWARD to the area of the right orbit (behind the right eye). (The EOP is tbe bump on the back of your head.) This is further evidence that the rear head entrance wound was not in the cowlick but rather four inches lower, very close to the EOP and just a couple inches above the hairline. Why is this so important? Because no bullet fired from the Oswald sniper's nest could have made that wound, unless Kennedy's head was tilted nearly 60 degrees forward, which the Zapruder film and the Muchmore film clearly show it was not.

* Joe O'Donnell, a White House photographer who worked with Robert Knudsen, told the ARRB that Knudsen showed him autopsy photos that showed a grapefruit-sized hole IN THE BACK OF THE HEAD. This is yet another witness who saw a sizable wound in the rear of the skull. The evidence of a large wound in the back of Kennedy's head is important because the current autopsy photos show no such wound. In the autopsy photos the back of the head is virtually undamaged. Critics contend those photos have either been altered or the skull was cosmetically repaired before the pictures were taken, so as to conceal the large wound in the back of the head. A large wound in the back of the head, of course, would be characteristic of a shot from the front, not from behind.

from http://ourworld-top.cs.com/mikegriffith1/id85.htm

But if I recall, the bullet that was recovered on the gurney matched the rifle found in the building, and Oswald's prints were on the rifle. He definitely fired that rifle.

There is no doubt there was a shooter in the depository. As to whether or not Oswald shot the rifle:

http://ourworld.cs.com/mikegriffith1/id147.htm
http://ourworld.cs.com/mikegriffith1/id113.htm

Realize that prints r one thing, and the actual firing is something else. Keep in mind that if there was a conspiracy, and Oswald indeed was the patsy, wouldn't it follow that whoever set him up would put his prints on the rifle? But then again, the prints themselves r questionable.

 

[CZzyzx41]

My feeling is that there was more than one gunman but I dont believe there's a mass conspiracy to withold information I just think the information died with Oswald and we'll never know for sure.