JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots

[gwiz]

Common sense would tell you that any sensible conspirator would not have multiple shooters from completely different angles.

Common sense has little to do with conspiracy theories.  Look at the baroque complication of most 9/11 conspiracy theories, involving switching the airliners for missiles or remote-controlled aircraft, occupied buildings rigged for demolition and organisations like ASCE and NIST bribed to comply with some "official" theory.

Surely if the US Government wanted to carry out such an operation and point the finger at Islamic terrorists, the easiest way would be for an agent to pose as a member of Al Qaeda, recruit the required team of jihadis and get them to hijack the aircraft.

Very few people would need to be in the know, much easier to keep it secret.

[twik]

Good question on Jackie not being struck, maybe because the bullet exited back right.

Why exactly would a rifle bullet from a front-right trajectory entering a man's skull exit back-right?

Didn't know that you subscribed to your own Magic Bullet Theory!n Did it make a sudden 90 degree turn in the middle of JFK's head?

[Echnaton]

To support the shots only coming from the rear, all of this evidence supporting shots coming from the front had to be disregarded and was.
Unless this thread turns into uh huh and na huh can we agree that the evidence I just presented is authentic and corroborated by multiple witnesses?

To revisit this post.... If you want to claim that the "evidence" you posted is "authentic and corroborated," please tell us why the thorough, professional investigations did not draw the conclusion of a head shot from the right side of the car.   If the "evidence" is available to you, was it not available to them?  This must be answered before anyone will have a reason to believe that your interpretation of the events has even slightest plausibility.

Give us a place for the shooter and a trajectory that can better account for the physical evidence. 

[profmunkin]

twik
I have been rereading Mr Garrison's book and started listening to Mr Bugliosi's book at the recommendation from a post that I should do so.
Bugliosi is a very good writer, Garrison has integrity and objectivity, Bugliosi does not seem to to be connected to reality. Bugliosi's opinions glare through every point as he carefully chooses only those pieces of history that support a fine tuned version of the fictional WC JFK story he is recreating.

Everything in the Warren Commission report may be true based on the evidence within the Warren Commission. Based on a carefully crafted set of evidence.
The problem in reality is that just like Mr Bugliosi's book the Warren Commission used the evidence that would support the one desired end.

As it was, The Warren Commission may have done this with the false notion of patriotism or may have done this in ignorance, but knowing it to be a fraud and not admitting to it's shortcomings goes against me and all other citizens of the United Stated of America.

To not try and incorporate all of the evidence ignored or not accepted as evidence as well as the tremendous wealth of information revealed since 1963 is inconsistent with the ideals of justice and
intellectually corrupt.

[profmunkin]

twik
http://dolk.host.sk/dolkpage96/horror/famosos/jfk2.htm
This is a link to JFK autopsy sheet

Is this valid evidence?

[profmunkin]

Echnton your playing a trolls game.
I posted earlier, referencing Doug Horne's research and proof's concerning the falsification of evidence.

The evidence within the WC may have justified their findings, the problem is their findings do not support major portions of the evidence.

If you want to continue to badger me about shooters, why not you take a stab at explaining the evidence I have posted concerning JFK neck wound, that appeared to be an entrance wound.

[profmunkin]

twik
a little levity about the head wound, cute

well lets say if it works for a back wound it should be equally valid for a head wound.
Yes exactly, it was a magic bullet to the head!

[profmunkin]

gwiz
Why would you only have a single shooter?

[LunarOrbit]

gwiz
please keep your incoherent 911 stories to yourself or start another thread.

Interesting. I thought I was the moderator here, not you. And since you don't seem to mind taking other peoples threads off topic you can't really complain when someone does it with yours.

And there was nothing incoherent about what he said either.

[profmunkin]

Echnaton
I already provided a sketch that covers all of the shots
Shot 4 - hit JFK in the temple, from the front - from the grassy knoll

evidence supported by witnesses that saw the head shot and by Parkland emergency room doctors and staff and witnesses to the autopsy.

Now your turn, explain the neck wound evidence I posted.

[Echnaton]

Echnton your playing a trolls game.
I posted earlier, referencing Doug Horne's research and proof's concerning the falsification of evidence.

The evidence within the WC may have justified their findings, the problem is their findings do not support major portions of the evidence.

If you want to continue to badger me about shooters, why not you take a stab at explaining the evidence I have posted concerning JFK neck wound, that appeared to be an entrance wound.

Your claim=your proof.   I don't have to explain anything.  You do.  Rather you give me the option of accepting the widely read, reviewed and considered investigations or some guy on the internet who won't put forward even the first glimpse of a unified explanation.  Given the situation, which would you choose?  If you disagree with my characterization of the situation, please tell me where I am in error.  Until then your failure to answer questions makes your name calling reminiscent of a nasty tempered pot I once knew.   
 
So let's start again.  Just start by telling us where the shooter was and where the bullet went after exiting JFK's head. And since you bring up the neck wound, tell us where the shooter was and where the bullet entered and went to?  No appeal to errors in the WC report, just a straight forward explanation. 

[Echnaton]

Echnaton
I already provided a sketch that covers all of the shots
Shot 4 - hit JFK in the temple, from the front - from the grassy knoll

evidence supported by witnesses that saw the head shot and by Parkland emergency room doctors and staff and witnesses to the autopsy.

Now your turn, explain the neck wound evidence I posted.

As an explanation, profmunkin was responding to a post that I made and quickly deleted. My post following his is a revised version.  Sorry to promunkin for the confusion. 

All you "proof" is meaningless hypothetical that can be ruled out unless you can tell us how the bullet did not hit Jackie or the limo.  She was right behind JFK's head when the bullet hit, from the perspective of the knoll. 

[gillianren]

. . . Garrison has integrity and objectivity . . . .

Wrong.  Garrison manifestly has neither.  Garrison is so far from reality that other conspiracy theorists want nothing to do with him.  There were a lot of conspiracists who were really looking forward to the Oliver Stone JFK who refused to have anything to do with it once it was determined that Garrison's was the version to be told.  Most of what Garrison claims as fact is known to be wrong.  Even if he convinced the jury that there was a conspiracy involved--and again, that's the opposite of what actually happened--but that his side of things wasn't the right one, that still means the jury didn't find his version of events convincing.  Yet somehow, for decades, there's been this Garrison cottage industry which whitewashes the man's lies and mob ties.  Why is that?

[twik]

gwiz
Why would you only have a single shooter?

Why on earth would you have more than one, or at most a group firing from a single position? Three shooters from three different angles is a ridiculous way to try to persuade people that there was one shooter, as well as tripling the chances of being discovered by accident.

The trouble with the JFK conspiracy theories in general is that they assume a simulaneous complete control of every variable, and an inability to control anything. If you need three shooters because the odds are that one cannot successfully pull off a fatal shot, your solution should be to select a better vantage point (or shooter), not have people firing from random compass points. If the grassy knoll is a better location, put the shooter there - not also two other places. Heck, its relative concealment would allow the plotters to shoot and kill a "patsy" on the spot, instead of allowing Oswald to wander off the scene completely unnoticed.

The only reason why conspiracy theorists get obsessed about multiple shooters is that it allows them to stare at fuzzy polaroids and play "let's find the anomaly".

[profmunkin]

All you "proof" is meaningless hypothetical that can be ruled out unless you can tell us how the bullet did not hit Jackie or the limo.  She was right behind JFK's head when the bullet hit, from the perspective of the knoll.

It is easier to visualize a bullet hitting JFK in the temple from the front, and deflecting enough to blow a hole in the back right side of this head, as all the evidence I mentioned supports.

How does a bullet from the rear, cause the back of JFK's head to explode with matter blown back and to the right?
Why does the WC evidence of the head wound not match "any" evidence from witness testimony?