JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots

[profmunkin]

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 primary goal of the mission would have been to kill JFK
If JFK had not been killed, there would have been a lot of people put away for a long time as well as some major changes made to our government agencies and polices.
"They" had to assume there would be only a single opportunity. JFK had to be killed.
The only insurance they would have had was multiple shooters.
This is the same team configuration as S-Force squads they created to kill Cuban officials, 3 snipers per team for a kill.

Second goal would be to get away with it.  I would guess that if Oswald lone gunman failed there would have been another secondary story ready to go to cover multiple shooters. 

[profmunkin]

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.

How many pieces of evidence do you think I could reference from On The Trail Of The Assassins before you could disprove one?

[gillianren]

How many pieces of evidence do you think I could reference from On The Trail Of The Assassins before you could disprove one?

One.

[Jason Thompson]

I would guess that if Oswald lone gunman failed there would have been another secondary story ready to go to cover multiple shooters. 

This is another example of your conspiracy theory failing for lack of common sense. If they were going to use multiple shooters anyway why not use the 'secondary' cover story as the primary one?

Either way you look at it, there is no way to reconcile the idea of them using multiple shooters in multiple locations and then trying to use a lone gunman cover story as the action of a halfway competent intelligence agency. Even multiple shooters in the same location would have been a better idea. If a whole bunch of us can see that without even thinking about it, how did an agency supposedly adept at arranging secret assassinations with plenty of preparation time utterly fail to do so and instead come up with such a ludicrous plan?

[Echnaton]

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.

The bullet hits the temple nearly square on from the right, on a downward trajectory. Yet it makes a sharp left turn and exits up and back and flies completely out of the limo.  Now that is an imaginative visualization.  Do you have any experts that will support this magic bullet flight?  Or is it your personal interpretation?

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?

Shifting the burden of proof.  Why is it that professional investigators accept the conclusion that the bullet entered from the right rear? No experts seem to be troubled by the subsequent motions of brain matter and damage to the skull.  Neither you nor I are able to make an expert judgement on the question, however my experience and knowledge leads me to accept that the bullet came from the right rear rather than from the side.  Specifically, what have the original investigations and professional observers and reviewers missed all these years?  Or are they simply insufficiently conspiratorially aware?

[Echnaton]

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 primary goal of the mission would have been to kill JFK
If JFK had not been killed, there would have been a lot of people put away for a long time as well as some major changes made to our government agencies and polices.
"They" had to assume there would be only a single opportunity. JFK had to be killed.
The only insurance they would have had was multiple shooters.
This is the same team configuration as S-Force squads they created to kill Cuban officials, 3 snipers per team for a kill.

Second goal would be to get away with it.  I would guess that if Oswald lone gunman failed there would have been another secondary story ready to go to cover multiple shooters. 

A nice plot for a movie.  It is all contingent on there being a conspiracy, which, in this story line, is contingent on there being multiple gunman, a condition for which you have only offered speculation.  Your focus is on how it might be done, rather on whether it was done.

[Jason Thompson]

I wonder how many examples of things (or even people, as plenty of real film of such exists) being shot and not being blasted backwards by the impact of the bullet one has to provide before JFK conspiracy theorists will finally concede that physics does not support the idea that a head being blown backwards and to the left could be caused by a bullet entering from the front right....

[Echnaton]

Profmunkin, have you ever stood on the Grassy Knoll?  Have you ever surveyed the area from that spot with the idea of being a gunman at that location?  Where the target would be and how the bullet would travel? What the results would be?

I ask this because your purely "rationalistic" approach of determining what must have happened is at odds with an empirical assessment of looking at what could have happened.   You reason backwards from a conclusion and invent what you need to fit the conclusion.  A rationalistic theory can be used for proposing avenues of inquiry, but it is subservient to  the empirical facts of the situation.  As long as you ignore the topography of location and the demonstrable characteristics of objects in motion, your theory will be rejected as implausible.  No amount of sniping at the WC report will suffice.


edited for spelling

[twik]

I think you're quite wrong about goals. Goal #1 would always be to get away with it. I can't imagine any consequence to the conspirators  of having JKF live would be worse than killing him, and getting caught.

No one (other than idiots) would set up a conspiracy that relied for its success on everone believing the shots only came from one location by firing from multiple other locations. If you needed multiple shooters, at least put them in one location.

(Oh, and I assume that if you believe in "deflection" of bullets, you have no problem with accepting that the path of the bullet through JFK into Connolly was well within possibilities. Certainly more possible than a high-powered rifle shot from the side deflecting inside a cranium and exiting the back of the head.)

[profmunkin]

How many pieces of evidence do you think I could reference from On The Trail Of The Assassins before you could disprove one?

One.

OK here is One of as many as you want.
page 44
Garrisons is talking about a CIA camp that was near Lake Pontchartrain that had been raided by the FBI.
The camp "was preparing for future CIA-sponsored attacks on Cuba, "  That "the FBI raid came in response to pressure from President Kennedy who wanted the bureau to stop the CIA's undending violations of the Neutrality Act."

[profmunkin]

(Oh, and I assume that if you believe in "deflection" of bullets, you have no problem with accepting that the path of the bullet through JFK into Connolly was well within possibilities. Certainly more possible than a high-powered rifle shot from the side deflecting inside a cranium and exiting the back of the head.)

http://dolk.host.sk/dolkpage96/horror/famosos/jfk2.htm
this link lead to the autopsy sheet on JFK
once you validate this as evidence, you can explain to me how a bullet traveling at a downward angle, hits JFK's back, deflets upward to exit about 6" higher from his throat, then deflects downward into Connelly, which is another story.
A magic bullet is what you would need, but they ain't real.

[LunarOrbit]

OK here is One of as many as you want.
page 44
Garrisons is talking about a CIA camp that was near Lake Pontchartrain that had been raided by the FBI.
The camp "was preparing for future CIA-sponsored attacks on Cuba, "  That "the FBI raid came in response to pressure from President Kennedy who wanted the bureau to stop the CIA's undending violations of the Neutrality Act."

Prove it is connected to Kennedy's assassination. Just because someone has a motive to commit murder doesn't necessarily mean they're guilty.

[profmunkin]

I wonder how many examples of things (or even people, as plenty of real film of such exists) being shot and not being blasted backwards by the impact of the bullet one has to provide before JFK conspiracy theorists will finally concede that physics does not support the idea that a head being blown backwards and to the left could be caused by a bullet entering from the front right....

Then show me the phisics that supports JFK being thrown violently backward toward the path from where the bullet came and to the side

[profmunkin]

Prove it is connected to Kennedy's assassination. Just because someone has a motive to commit murder doesn't necessarily mean they're guilty.

The point is that it has everything to do with the assassination.
The CIA was carrying out attacks against Cuba even after the CIA failed Bay of Pigs operation and the missile crisis, Kennedy promissed Kruschev that America would stop clandestine operations against Cuba. The CIA disobeyed a direct order and carried out an operation against Cuba from Star Island (commanded by Frank Sturgis), Kennedy found out and raided that CIA camp. The CIA then carried out another operation against Cuba from this CIA camp (commanded by E Howard Hunt). This was the second CIA camp Kennedy raided.
CIA also disobeyed the Whitehouse on 2 occasions in Viet Nam.

This is motive, which make the CIA suspect.
Arthur Kroc 1963 article http://www.jfklancer.com/Krock.html
In it The Whitehouse forwarns of a coup coming from the CIA

There is more then enough evidence to know JFK assassination was a conspiracy, this is just one piece.
Daniel Sheehan has an incredible talk on JFK assassination that illustrates how factions became aligned and why they were motivated to do so. 

[LunarOrbit]

This is motive, which make the CIA suspect.

I didn't ask for speculation, I asked for proof. I'm beginning to wonder if you know the meaning of the word.

I'll repeat: just because someone had a motive to commit murder doesn't mean they're guilty. You might as well say that Jackie Kennedy is a suspect because she was upset that her husband cheated on her. Soon your list of suspects will be so long that you can't rule anyone out and you'll be even further from solving the case than you were before you started investigating it.