709 users online (105 members and 604 guests)  


The Killing Season - Websleuths

Websleuths News


Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 22
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    17,719

    New doubts regarding JFK bullet analysis

    New techniques have led to new questions.

    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18709539/

  2. #2
    hipmamajen's Avatar
    hipmamajen is offline I love the friends I have gathered together on this thin raft...
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    1,199
    Ooh, that looks interesting!
    Just thinkin' out loud....


  3. #3
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    The Mountains of Pa.*
    Posts
    1,109
    Quote Originally Posted by Marthatex View Post
    New techniques have led to new questions.

    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18709539/
    New doubts........
    I have never, ever thought there was one gunman.....
    I did a college report on this and thought the teacher would get it too, he did not ...........He just didn't get the points....
    There has not been a day that goes by, or a book read, that makes me believe .......there was only one.
    Why....? you might ask.........
    1. the witnesses to what happened behind the grassy knoll
    2. the direction the people looked in the Z film.
    3. the movement of the Presidents head
    4. Jack Ruby
    5. the dark shadowed people in the back areas
    6. Too many shots in all directions, hitting different people. (fragments just coming up now?)

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Dana Point,CA
    Posts
    52,759
    So if I am reading correctly, they didn't find anything specific to dispute the evidence.
    >>They reached no conclusion about whether more than one gunman was involved, but urged that authorities conduct a new and complete forensic re-analysis of the five bullet fragments left from the assassination 44 years ago<<


    I have never seen anything to make me buy the conpsiracy theory, but I certainly have an open mind.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    Where else? Texas ! ! ! !
    Posts
    12,198
    Quote Originally Posted by JBean View Post
    So if I am reading correctly, they didn't find anything specific to dispute the evidence.
    >>They reached no conclusion about whether more than one gunman was involved, but urged that authorities conduct a new and complete forensic re-analysis of the five bullet fragments left from the assassination 44 years ago<<


    I have never seen anything to make me buy the conpsiracy theory, but I certainly have an open mind.
    I was 10 yrs old when this happened... and my dad always said Oswald did not act alone. I believe him... Oswald was the scapegoat
    /


    "Would some power the Giftee gie us To see ourselves as others see us" R.Burns

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    1,464
    Quote Originally Posted by JBean View Post
    So if I am reading correctly, they didn't find anything specific to dispute the evidence.
    >>They reached no conclusion about whether more than one gunman was involved, but urged that authorities conduct a new and complete forensic re-analysis of the five bullet fragments left from the assassination 44 years ago<<


    I have never seen anything to make me buy the conpsiracy theory, but I certainly have an open mind.
    There is also this from the article. I think with the statement that you quoted they were just covering their butts.

    >>"This finding means that the bullet fragments from the assassination that match could have come from three or more separate bullets," the researchers said.
    "If the assassination fragments are derived from three or more separate bullets, then a second assassin is likely, as the additional bullet would not be attributable to the main suspect, Mr. Oswald."<<

    Basically they are saying that because the fragments could have come from three or more bullets, then a second assassin would have been involved because only 2 shots were linked to Oswald (if Oswald was even there. Refer to the attached link and you'll see why I have my doubts).

    http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/RA...ostphotos.html
    Life is what happens to you while you're busy making other plans - John Lennon

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Northern California
    Posts
    2,440
    One simple question has always haunted me about the JFK assasination: Why did Oswald kill Kennedy?

    In any crime, discovering a motive is a primary investigative tool. The Warren Commision says that Oswald was jealous of Kennedy's "youthful vitality" and his great family life, and for that reason, he murdered a president. This reeks of hooey to me. Oswald, for all of the things that can be said about him, did not seem to be crazy. For this to have been his motivation, he would have had to be crazy. Thus, with no motive to kill Kennedy, a logical conclusion would be that he did not kill him. Add to this the mountains of evidence pointing away from him as the lone shooter and it becomes clear that the conspiracy answer is the most logical one.
    Order the book "Searching For Anna" directly from [URL="http://www.lulu.com/conte

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Not Of This World
    Posts
    21,642
    Quote Originally Posted by Dr. Doogie View Post
    One simple question has always haunted me about the JFK assasination: Why did Oswald kill Kennedy?

    In any crime, discovering a motive is a primary investigative tool. The Warren Commision says that Oswald was jealous of Kennedy's "youthful vitality" and his great family life, and for that reason, he murdered a president. This reeks of hooey to me. Oswald, for all of the things that can be said about him, did not seem to be crazy. For this to have been his motivation, he would have had to be crazy. Thus, with no motive to kill Kennedy, a logical conclusion would be that he did not kill him. Add to this the mountains of evidence pointing away from him as the lone shooter and it becomes clear that the conspiracy answer is the most logical one.
    Actually, most recent reinactments and studies by media organizations such as ABC News and the Discovery Channel have shown it is likely he was the lone shooter. It's within the realm of reason and other theories didn't hold up to testing.


    Follow me on the Twitter! @EricDiesel1972

    Deuteronomy 18:10-12 (KJV)

    10 There shall not be found among you anyone who makes his son or his daughter pass through the fire, or one who practices witchcraft, or a soothsayer, or one who interprets omens, or a sorcerer, 11 or one who conjures spells, or a medium, or a spiritist, or one who calls up the dead. 12 For all who do these things are an abomination to the Lord. (KJV)

    Follow me at my Biblical Blog: http://scripture-demystified.blogspot.com

    Baruch ha Shem Adonai.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    The Mountains of Pa.*
    Posts
    1,109

    Behind the grassy knoll

    The facts of what went on" behind the grassy knoll".......could change your mind on ONE shooter. Sly, fast and dark figures, even rifles seen dismantled.
    Where did everyone look too?
    Were they all wrong?
    One shot seemed to push his head backwards........
    People then looked to the smoke on the knoll.......
    Even the police ran that way.....hands pointed that way...films rolled.
    Can all the people there be wrong?
    From that day forward........from that moment on.......reports or not...
    I would never believe one shooter.
    What I saw and heard with my own eyes, I would not be persuaded to
    delete. Especially not because someone wanted the story to end.....
    with one simple explaination.

  10. #10
    tennessee is offline Blew out my flipflop. Stepped on a pop top . . .
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Posts
    1,013
    I doubt that Oswald acted alone. I think maybe he thought he was.

    I wasn't even alive at the time but seeing the footage of Jackie always breaks my heart. Can you imagine the terror?
    Opinions are like belly buttons. Everyone's got one. This one is mine.


  11. #11
    Quote Originally Posted by Marthatex View Post
    New techniques have led to new questions.

    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18709539/
    dang, the link won't open for me....."page can't be displayed", ugh.....

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Dana Point,CA
    Posts
    52,759
    Quote Originally Posted by Dark Knight View Post
    Actually, most recent reinactments and studies by media organizations such as ABC News and the Discovery Channel have shown it is likely he was the lone shooter. It's within the realm of reason and other theories didn't hold up to testing.
    I am in agreement with this at this point of my own research. There just is no compelling evidence to the contrary IMO.

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Dana Point,CA
    Posts
    52,759
    Quote Originally Posted by Hez View Post
    There is also this from the article. I think with the statement that you quoted they were just covering their butts.

    >>"This finding means that the bullet fragments from the assassination that match could have come from three or more separate bullets," the researchers said.
    "If the assassination fragments are derived from three or more separate bullets, then a second assassin is likely, as the additional bullet would not be attributable to the main suspect, Mr. Oswald."<<

    Basically they are saying that because the fragments could have come from three or more bullets, then a second assassin would have been involved because only 2 shots were linked to Oswald (if Oswald was even there. Refer to the attached link and you'll see why I have my doubts).

    http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/RA...ostphotos.html
    I think "if" and "could have" are the operative phrases in this article. My mind is open so if the "could have" is confirmed I will be anxious to hear the rest.

  14. #14
    ok, tried again.....

    interesting...i've always thought there was more than one gunman, anyway...

    They found that the scientific and statistical assumptions Guinn used -- and the government accepted at the time -- to conclude that the fragments came from just two bullets fired from Oswald's gun were wrong.

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Posts
    4,778
    I'm not a believer in most conspiracy theories, and for the most part, believe them an attempt to explain the unexplainable.

    But, in the case of JFK, IF there was a conspiracy, then the one explanation I've heard that could be probable is a mob hit in retaliation for RFK's vendetta and agressive prosecution against the Mafia.

    I've really never accepted the "why" of Oswald wanting to kill him. But I don't think any conspiracy will ever be proven.

Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast


Similar Threads

  1. Stronger Than a Falling Bullet: Woman's Bra Softens Bullet's Blow
    By dark_shadows in forum Up to the Minute
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 01-07-2007, 05:49 AM
  2. Doubts over British Megan's Law
    By Floh in forum Up to the Minute
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 07-23-2006, 05:49 AM
  3. My doubts about the case
    By twizzler333 in forum JonBenet Ramsey
    Replies: 116
    Last Post: 10-02-2004, 06:52 PM