Progarchives.com has always (since 2002) relied on banners ads to cover web hosting fees and all. Please consider supporting us by giving monthly PayPal donations and help keep PA fast-loading and ad-free forever.
Joined: June 22 2004
Location: England
Status: Offline
Points: 16130
Posted: November 18 2013 at 09:17
Equality 7-2521 wrote:
I swear these theories get more and more ridiculous every year.
The trouble is nothing can be verified. One year (40th anniversary, maybe) the BBC made a documentary 'proving' that three successful shots could have been pulled off from that window by Oswald. In the wake of that, a series of internet documentaries sought to prove it impossible. Both made convincing cases at the time.
What I find to be more mysterious is why Jack Ruby killed Oswald and who pulled Jack Ruby's strings?
Is there evidence to suggest someone was pulling Ruby's strings??
I am not positive somebody pulled Ruby's strings but what would propel someone to shoot somebody knowing there was a 100 % chance they would be caught? A murder almost all of America saw on live TV. Yes, I think there is a good chance Jack Ruby had "handlers".
Joined: June 22 2004
Location: England
Status: Offline
Points: 16130
Posted: November 18 2013 at 13:30
timothy leary wrote:
Blacksword wrote:
timothy leary wrote:
What I find to be more mysterious is why Jack Ruby killed Oswald and who pulled Jack Ruby's strings?
Is there evidence to suggest someone was pulling Ruby's strings??
Only the ? why would he commit a murder which had all of America as witnesses. I think maybe he had "handlers".
Yeah, it was an odd decision to kill Oswald so publicly and brazenly. I don't know much about Ruby apart from that he was a club owner. Did he have known links to the mob?
It was somewhat convenient that Oswald was taken out before he could be tried.
Joined: August 11 2005
Location: Philly
Status: Offline
Points: 15784
Posted: November 18 2013 at 13:37
Blacksword wrote:
Equality 7-2521 wrote:
I swear these theories get more and more ridiculous every year.
The trouble is nothing can be verified. One year (40th anniversary, maybe) the BBC made a documentary 'proving' that three successful shots could have been pulled off from that window by Oswald. In the wake of that, a series of internet documentaries sought to prove it impossible. Both made convincing cases at the time.
What do you mean by verified exactly? There is no controlled experiment showing Oswalt was the shooter nor can there be. However, all of the evidence is consistent with this theory. There is no other theory which offers the same completeness or consistency. There's no conspiracy. People just need to deal with the fact that their lives are potentially short and can be ended under completely mundane and random circumstances.
"One had to be a Newton to notice that the moon is falling, when everyone sees that it doesn't fall. "
Joined: September 30 2006
Location: Pearland
Status: Online
Points: 65623
Posted: November 18 2013 at 20:24
^ For some time the brain was missing, or misplaced, in the National Archives. As far as I know, it still is. It may be buried with JFK's body at Arlington, or it may be that whatever was left of the brain (most of the right hemisphere was gone) is lost somewhere like a relic out of Raiders of the Lost Arc. The current brain debate revolves around the photos and drawings of Kennedy's brain which appear to show a lacerated but almost intact brain.
As for theories regarding the President's protective team shooting at him, this first emerged in a manuscript called Murder From Within, self-published by the authors decades later, theorizing the driver shot JFK. Another book called Mortal Error speculated a SS man in a car behind Kennedy accidentally shot him with his M-15.
Though hard to swallow, Murder From Within presents an excellent, thoroughly researched case and ended up being one of the best and most influential of the conspiracy books. It is a remarkable read done with sincerity and meticulous documentation.
Joined: September 30 2006
Location: Pearland
Status: Online
Points: 65623
Posted: November 18 2013 at 20:34
chopper wrote:
When I started this post, I was going to say that it couldn't have been someone sitting next to JFK (actually only his wife was anyway) and it couldn't have been someone in the front of the car as JFK clearly slumped forward after the head shot, however after watching the video again, he clearly slumps BACKWARDS just after the bullet hits (at 0:57 in this video.
Weird.
His head moves almost imperceptibly forward and then suddenly backward. In fact his whole upper body is thrown back into the seat. But bullets entering bodies behave in all sorts of ways, not always predictably. The laws of physics demand an object that is struck by a second will move in the direction of the second object, which gave rise to the "He must've been shot from the front" argument. But the body, particularly the head, has many properties that are acted upon in counterintuitive ways: The head is mobile on the neck, it is round, very hard but with differing thicknesses around the skull, and under intense internal pressure. Kennedy's head exploded, like an egg that is squeezed from beneath, causing the head to interact with the rest of Kennedy's body. This cranial explosion may have caused a rearward snap as much as it could cause a forward one. We just don't know precisely what combination of physiologic forces were being stimulated.
Joined: August 11 2005
Location: Philly
Status: Offline
Points: 15784
Posted: November 18 2013 at 21:30
Atavachron wrote:
chopper wrote:
When I started this post, I was going to say that it couldn't have been someone sitting next to JFK (actually only his wife was anyway) and it couldn't have been someone in the front of the car as JFK clearly slumped forward after the head shot, however after watching the video again, he clearly slumps BACKWARDS just after the bullet hits (at 0:57 in this video.
Weird.
His head moves almost imperceptibly forward and then suddenly backward. In fact his whole upper body is thrown back into the seat. But bullets entering bodies behave in all sorts of ways, not always predictably. The laws of physics demand an object that is struck by a second will move in the direction of the second object, which gave rise to the "He must've been shot from the front" argument. But the body, particularly the head, has many properties that are acted upon in counterintuitive ways: The head is mobile on the neck, it is round, very hard but with differing thicknesses around the skull, and under intense internal pressure. Kennedy's head exploded, like an egg that is squeezed from beneath, causing the head to interact with the rest of Kennedy's body. This cranial explosion may have caused a rearward snap as much as it could cause a forward one. We just don't know precisely what combination of physiologic forces were being stimulated.
This isn't true even in the classical sense unless you replace object with something like particle. The head moves in a pretty intuitive way when you break down what occurred.
"One had to be a Newton to notice that the moon is falling, when everyone sees that it doesn't fall. "
Joined: September 30 2006
Location: Pearland
Status: Online
Points: 65623
Posted: November 18 2013 at 21:37
^ It moves in a way that is natural for head/body mechanics.
I wouldn't call it intuitive. The problem for many is that it simply looks as if something
hits him in the forehead. And indeed it does look that way.
Joined: August 11 2005
Location: Philly
Status: Offline
Points: 15784
Posted: November 18 2013 at 21:40
Well I don't really want to argue about what is/is not intuitive, but I think it only runs counter to intuition if we think of the head as a solid object, which itself would be very unnatural when we talk about things passing through it.
"One had to be a Newton to notice that the moon is falling, when everyone sees that it doesn't fall. "
Joined: September 30 2006
Location: Pearland
Status: Online
Points: 65623
Posted: November 19 2013 at 00:36
Equality 7-2521 wrote:
Atavachron wrote:
an object that is struck by a second will move in the direction of the second object,
This isn't true even in the classical sense unless you replace object with something like particle. The head moves in a pretty intuitive way when you break down what occurred.
Just so we're clear, I meant to say an object struck by a second will move in the direction of the path the second object was taking. Of course with a head on a living body, even this may not always be true.
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot create polls in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
This page was generated in 0.277 seconds.
Donate monthly and keep PA fast-loading and ad-free forever.
/PAlogo_v2.gif "Progarchives.com Homepage")
The President Was Shot...
Topic Options
Equality 7-2521 wrote:
