Was more than one shooter involved in the JFK assassination?

Discussion in 'Conspiracies' started by River Ape, Nov 30, 2013.

  1. River Ape Valued Senior Member

    I did not know any well-informed person still believed that.
    The House Select Committee on Assassinations verdict was "probable conspiracy".
    But if you still believe that a shot from behind could blow a guy's brains out over the trunk of his car, I think you should start a separate thread and present your case.
    Anyone who closes his mind to the reality of conspiracies is just as misguided as those who accept them too easily.
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    River Ape,

    When did this House Select Committee look at the matter?

    Who says his brains were blown over the trunk of his car?

    I am aware that there was quite a bit of blood thrown around. Jackie Kennedy ended up with blood on her face and in her hair, for example.

    I have looked at the evidence. There's little chance that a conspiracy was involved in the JFK shooting.
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. River Ape Valued Senior Member

    The House Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA) was established in 1976 ...
    ... following the release in 1975 of the Zapruder film (find it on YouTube) which clearly shows from which direction the fatal shot was fired, shows the president's brains blown out of the back of his head, and confirms the expressed opinion of multiple witnesses at the time that the gunman fired from the "grassy knoll".
    This puts you in conflict with the findings of the HSCA. The National Archives summary records "The committee believes, on the basis of the evidence available to it, that President John F. Kennedy was probably assassinated as a result of a conspiracy." The HSCA was severely critical of the Warren Commission.

    (The HSCA report has subsequently been discredited in the eyes of many, but not its finding that shots were fired from more than one direction.)

    BTW, perhaps you believe that the "Tonkin Incident" of 4 August 1964 actually happened as reported?
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. River Ape Valued Senior Member

    Name three!
    Have you ever watched the Zapruder film?
  8. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Who said his brains were spread over the boot???
    Didn't Jackie also after cradling her husbands head for a while, lean backwards to help a security person on board??
    I still see no convincing evidence that the accepted story is a conspiracy.
  9. River Ape Valued Senior Member

    Dallas Police Chief Jesse Curry (from his Wikipedia entry):
    "by the direction of his blood and brain from the president from one of the shots, it would just seem that it would have to been fired from the front rather than behind."
    And if you search, you will probably find another dozen answers to the "Who" question.

    Events of the Zapruder film:
    JFK is waving to the crowds when he suddenly clutches his throat (surmise: where he had been hit by a first bullet)
    The bodies of the President and the First Lady move towards one another
    Suddenly JFK's head is propelled violently backwards (surmise: by a second bullet fired from in front of him)
    Jackie leaps onto the trunk and seems to clutch at something on it (surmise: the largest fragment of brain)
    Jackie clambers back to her seat exclaiming (according to several good witnesses) "They've killed my husband. I have his brain in my hands."

    The most telling (and surely indisputable) fact is the sudden violent backwards movement of the President's head. This cannot be accounted for by a shot fired from behind him. (Doubt or forget the rest if you want.)
  10. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Quite a graphic film......
    Let's assume you are correct, if the gunman fired from this grassy knoll, [and looking at the film graphics, it would needed to have been somthing rather powerful] why wasn't he seen and/or taken down by other people.....The noise etc...Surely someone would have seen it?

    this is also of interest


    And before I go, if we look at any of these other lame brained conspiracies, I'm the first to admit, that on face value, they can and do appear genuine. But further investigations generally show them up for what they are.......
    The guy that shot this film, how much money has he made of this so called conspiracy?
  11. River Ape Valued Senior Member

    Yeah, let's do that!
    But I haven't claimed to know anything about the conspiracy, and the HSCA said much the same thing.

    Conspiracies abound but they don't advertise; they shouldn't come as a surprise.
    Conspiracy theories get a bad name because they begin with a correct appreciation that there is something in need of explanation, but from there people let their imaginations and prejudices roam to come up speculative or fantastic explanations that lack credibility and are frequently absurd.

    Let's take 911. I know, and every fireman knows, that office blocks DO NOT just collapse the way WTC7 did. Frankly, anyone who regards that collapse as "normal" has a closed mind and is in denial. But conspiracy theories about the collapse are likely to be erected on a framework of imaginative fantasy ... so don't ask me for my explanation.
  12. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    River Ape,

    I've seen the Zapruder film - and the other (how many was it?) 6 or 7 amateur films that were taken at the same time by bystanders.

    The Zapruder film is consistent with the fatal shot being fired from the Texas Schoolbook Depository, which is where Oswald was. It does not show the President's brains being blown out of the back of his head. On the contrary, the recently enhanced film shows a fine mist of blood and brain matter emerging from the front of his head.

    I'm not familiar with the HSCA report, but I think it's safe to discredit any finding that the shots were fired from more than one direction. What was that finding based on?

    I don't know what the Tonkin Incident is. [edit: I just looked it up. There's a wikipedia article on it which probably gives the correct details.]

    Who is this guy? Was he there at the time? Or is he relying on a misreading of the Zapruder film, too?

    Wrong. JFK is hit by the second bullet - from behind - then the back brace he was wearing makes him slump over. You know he was wearing a back brace, right?

    I'm not sure what she was doing. It's probably on record and not too hard to find out. I'll bet she wasn't looking for brains.

    Which several good witnesses? She was in a moving car that contained 5 (?) people including herself, and one of them had just been shot.

    You've seen Oliver Stone's film and it convinced you, did it? "Back and to the left. Back and to the left." He didn't mention the back brace, I don't think.

    Yes. The current instance is a case in point.

    How many firemen have seen large office blocks collapsing in their line of work? Every one, eh? And you'd need to see a few to get an idea of the "standard" way that multi-story office buildings collapse. I bet every fireman has seen at least 10 of those.
  13. River Ape Valued Senior Member

    I recall that I heard that someone faked such an effect but beyond that I have no information.
    Well, for one thing, on the fact that more than three bullets were fired.
    Chief of Police Curry was the senior police officer in the Presidential convoy -- and was very much there at the time! I think his opinion is to be taken seriously.
    I had heard that JFK habitually wore a back brace.
    I wonder if you were aware that more than one doctor at the Parkland Hospital has gone on record that the neck and head wounds were both entry wounds?
    The original assumption was that she was escaping from a dangerous place -- but looking at the film it appears that she is reaching out for something.
    Both Governor and Mrs Connally testified that Jacky spoke of having JFK's brains in her hands.
    I have not seen the film. I heard it was drivel -- just the sort of speculative fantasy that gives conspiracy theories a bad name.
    No; multi-storey steel-frame office blocks DO NOT collapse even after far greater fire damage.

    BUT you have a closed mind, and I rather think I am wasting my time. However, perhaps you would let me know if you support the original Warren Commission report in full (as far as you are aware of its major findings) and whether you accept the so-called "magic bullet" theory?
  14. FatFreddy Registered Senior Member

  15. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    River Ape,

    I am not trying to waste your time. Clearly, you're the expert on the JFK assassination here. I want to learn from you. You have all the information at your fingertips, apparently. I do not. I'm hoping you can clear up my misconception that there was only one shooter - Oswald. I'm willing to be convinced. So convince me.

    It's a common ploy of conspiracy theorists to explain away inconvenient truths by dismissing them as evidence deliberately doctored by people "in" on the conspiracy. But you could be right, of course.

    Oh, is that a confirmed fact?

    What's the evidence that there were more than three bullets fired? Where were all the extra bullets found? For that matter, how many bullets were found in total?

    Of course, but it shouldn't be relied on solely. People make mistakes.

    Could that explain why the President slumped backwards, then?

    When did they go on record, and to whom? What was their involvement in the examination of the President? How closely did they examine the wounds?

    That may very well have been true, then. It doesn't mean the shot came from in front.

    I think that rather than trying to discuss two conspiracy theories at once, I'll concentrate on the JFK shooting for the moment.

    I'm willing to be convinced, like I said. But I warn you that I have seen quite a few documentaries on this event, from all kinds of different angles, including some conspiracy ones. I am also persuaded by some excellent debunkings of some of the standard conspiracy claims surrounding the event. But as I said earlier, I'm no expert on this. I haven't dedicated hours on end to examining the matter.

    I'm aware of a number of flaws in the Warren Commission report, so you'd probably have to put specifics to me to see if I agree or not.

    There's no need for a "magic bullet" theory, as far as I can see. One shot passed through Kennedy's neck and hit the Governor in the back. Another shot hit Kennedy in the back of the head; this was the fatal shot. Prior to both of those, there was one more shot, which may have hit a traffic light quite a bit before the point where the second shot hit Kennedy. As I understand it, that bullet was never found.
  16. River Ape Valued Senior Member

    Most of my watching and reading was carried out years ago so my info is buried a bit deeper than my fingertips, and I no longer have a record of some of the most convincing URLs. So if anyone wants to help me out, that would be appreciated.

    I will try to cut to the most convincing basic facts, as I see them.

    1] If you believe Oswald fired the fatal shot, you have to believe that he was freakishly lucky – and a scenario that invokes freakish good luck is inherently to be doubted. Oswald was allegedly using an old weapon with a poor reputation which it is barely possible (some claim impossible) to fire three times in the few seconds recorded by audio evidence – let alone take careful aim. Several attempts to replicate Oswald's alleged feat of accuracy have been made (including in association with the Warren Commission reconstruction), with zero success. This alone should make anyone wary of believing that Oswald was the assassin.

    2] It is generally agreed that one shot went wide of the limousine and shaved off a fragment of curbstone which cut the face of bystander James Tague. JFK was hit twice: once in the throat and once in the head. Connally was hit once. No one has accused Oswald of firing more than three shots. The Warren Commission therefore concocted the theory of the "magic bullett" that hit both JFK and Connally. However, one member of the Warren Commission is on record (on video) of stating that Connally had testified before the Commission that he was not hit by the same bullet as JFK. (Help! I don't have the URL of that video ... can someone else help?) Numerous firearms experts have ridiculed the magic bullett theory (take your pick on YouTube); I am inclined to believe them.

    3] The Warren Commission report includes what is alleged by one of the doctors who treated JFK at Parkland to be a fake autopsy photo of the back of JFK's head that does not show the massive wound that was very evidently an exit wound rather than an entry wound. See: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7VZa8CqpQn8

    How's that for starts?
  17. River Ape Valued Senior Member

    I had forgotten how ready Connally was to refute the Magic Bullet theory. Here he is talking to Life magazine about the Zapruder film ...
  18. arauca Banned Banned


    I meat in Jail a man who claims he shot JFK , he showed me a book written about him and his participation in the shooting.
  19. billvon Valued Senior Member

    You have proven River Ape wrong! Only a fool would believe that Oswald shot JFK now, or that there was a conspiracy.
  20. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    River Ape,

    That all depends on the assumption that Oswald only had a few seconds to get three shots off. In fact, as far as I am aware he might have had as long as 15 seconds (ballpark - maybe 13 is a better number) to get three shots off, with the first shot coming significantly before the other two. Attempts have been made to replicate the sequence and timing of the shots, with accurate aiming, most recently only a month or two ago. This was done at the scene, with meticulous measurements of distances determined from all the available film footage. An army shooter had no trouble replicating the timing or aiming of the shots. As I said, however, whether or not it can be done depends on your assumption (in particular) about when the first shot was fired. New evidence suggests that the first shot may have happened just after Kennedy's car turned the corned near the book depository. Reconstructions by the Warren Commission weren't as rigorous as modern forensic investigations of the incident have been.

    I don't think that is generally agreed. That is one hypothesis. In fact, as far as I am aware, only two bullets were found. The first shot may well have not been found because the investigators at the time did not look back down the road far enough. That is, they assumed the three shots occurred in a short time frame, whereas in fact there was likely a much longer gap between shot 1 and shots 2 and 3. Conspiracy theorists have generally accepted the short timing assumptions without question. In fact, they have used those assumptions, as you do, to argue that a shooter with that gun could not possibly have fired three shots in the required time frame. That may well be correct, but if that's not the correct time frame after all then the argument is a non-starter.

    There's no problem with shot 2 hitting both Kennedy and Connally. The "magic bullet" idea comes for a lack of correct appreciation of the seating arrangement in the car. Kennedy was sitting on a raised seat so that the public could see him better. Connally was in a "jump seat" lower than and slightly to the left of Kennedy. The "magic bullet" theory assumes that Connally was seated directly in front of Kennedy, requiring the bullet to jump across to the right after it exited Kennedy's throat. With the correct seating arrangement (which can be seen in the Zapruder film, if you're inclined to check), there's no call for any magic bullet.

    How could Connally possibly know that?

    I would be wary of putting much stock in people who years later have come out with sensational stories in order to cash in on the incident.

    You refer to Connally's comments on his own assessment of the film footage. Apparently he doesn't realise that a half-second delay between being hit and slumping would be perfectly normal. You don't react instantly to being shot.
  21. arauca Banned Banned

    There is one thing . Oswald got killed and so did Rubi , . There is also something funny about getting to fast the killer example Martin Luter King , they found a slab Earl Ray, were at the end Martin's family did not believe that Earl Ray killed Martin.. If Oswald killed JFK what was his motive ?
  22. River Ape Valued Senior Member

    Well frankly, James, I think you are kidding yourself.

    What, scored a hit on the head of a moving target with the same rifle that Oswald used?
    With "no trouble", whatever that means? I do not believe it. Where is your evidence?
    The fact remains that the Warren Commission was unable to replicate the shot Oswald is supposed to have made -- and they would clearly very much have liked to have done so. Other unsuccessful attempts were made in the sixties.

    If the fatal shot came from the book depository it was a remarkable feat of marksmanship -- it was a thousand to one (probably much more) against a guy like Oswald pulling it off. Do you disagree???

    Extracts from testimony to the Warren Commission:
    Dr. McCLELLAND - The initial impression that we had was that perhaps the wound in the neck ... was an entrance wound.
    ... later ...
    Mr. SPECTER - Do you have anything to add which you think might be helpful in any way to the Commission?
    Dr. McCLELLAND - No; I think not except again to emphasize perhaps that some of our statements to the press about the nature of the wound may have been misleading, possibly ... because ... they misinterpreted our certainty of being able to tell entrance from exit wounds ... I think they attributed too much certainty to us about that.

    THAT'S RIGHT!!! The very first statements by the doctors were that JFK was fired at from in front. (Read the very first reports! What the doctors said tallied with what the onlookers were saying almost unanimously: that the assassin fired from the grassy knoll. That was the breaking story as I first heard it in '63.) Thereafter, the doctors were induced to become uncertain. In fact, all the doctors seemed to take a vow of silence for years, most likely because they knew that the Warren Commission report had it all wrong.

    So what Dr M said years later was actually much the same as he said at the outset.

    Furthermore, "people" suggests just about anyone. The people you want to disagree with are one of the three/four doctors who tried to save the dying president, the Connallys, and the chief of police, not forgetting that nearest couple at the side of the road lying down to protect their children (remember them?) who have never deviated from their opinion that the assassin fired from the grassy knoll.

    Oh, and by the way, the Connally's accounts agree perfectly with audio analysis that there were two shots fired very close together-- in itself proof that there was more than one gunman.
  23. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    River Ape,

    I'm just making suggestions and raising questions. I'm not trying to convince you. Clearly you have a closed mind on this. I, on the other hand, do not.


    I saw a recent documentary that showed it being done. I'm sorry, but I can't recall the precise title or who made it. I saw it about a month ago. I've searched on the internet, but there's so many documentaries on this I couldn't find the right one in the time I spent searching.

    Do you have any comments on the timing assumptions that the Warren Commission made, that I raised in my previous post?

    Yes. Based on what I've seen I don't think it was that remarkable. It required a person who was a trained shooter. Maybe it required some good luck. But I don't think that we can rule out Oswald pulling it off on the grounds of the degree of marksmanship required.

    You have presented no evidence so far that extraordinary marksmanship would have been required, so I have no reason to change my mind on this so far.

    Where's the evidence that the doctors were "induced to become uncertain"? That's just conspiracy thinking at work, isn't it? Or do you have some evidence of pressure being applied?

    Reading the above transcript, it looks like McClelland simply clarified his statement later to dispel any misunderstanding.

    Spectators who were there at the time have a number of opinions of where the shots came from. There are at least as many (perhaps more - I'd have to check) who say they were fired from the book depository as those who say they came from the grassy knoll.

    Lots of spectators talked about where they thought they heard the shots coming from. It has been shown that people are notorious unreliable in identifying the location of a gun from the sound of a shot. It's actually hard to do, especially in a location where there are many echoing surfaces.

    Which audio was used? Who did the analysis? How close together? Has anybody disputed this audio analysis?

Share This Page