New doubts regarding JFK bullet analysis

Ooh, that looks interesting!
 
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?)
 
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.
 
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
 
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/RANCHO/POLITICS/JFK/postphotos.html
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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?
 
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.
 
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/RANCHO/POLITICS/JFK/postphotos.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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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 always thought that there was more than one person involved until I saw a very detailed documentary about Oswald, his life, the reenactment of the assassination, Johnson's (erroneous) beliefs, Jack Ruby, etc. It was an amazing documentary. I tried to research it online and could only come up with the following PBS link, which contains a lot of information.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/oswald/

I'm not sure where I saw the documentary, but it really was good. I wish that they would run it again. I believe that only one person committed the crime--Oswald. No one else prompted him to do it and no one else was involved.
 
I would like to see that PBS show.

I guess this new research opens up merely a possibility, which had been totally ruled out before. They still may not be able to prove the existence of a 3rd person, but it might open up some re-investigation and new thinking on the matter.

I never really believed it was a conspiracy, because I believed the Warren Commission I guess; but the sequence of events was so unbelievable at the time that you can't help but wondering if we know everything.

Why did Ruby want to kill Oswald so quickly? I'm sure it's been answered, but "something fishy". I really have not studied it as it's too painful really as I was at a young impressionable age and they were about to come to my town and I was all dressed up to go hear Kennedy after school that day.
Boy was it a shock I'll never forget; most who remember that time will not.
 
That 3 hour episode along with others are streaming on PBS frontline's site.

You can watch the whole three hours online about Oswald's life..a very good show but why did Oswald just happen to get a job at the
School Book Depository a few weeks before JFK was murdered? And Jack Ruby shooting Oswald...and the President's brain tissue lost and his autopsy notes burned AND the Texas police which include the infamous Henry Wade (of Roe v Wade) took 0 notes when interviewing Oswald for 12 hours.........

This was a coup but we will never know by who or why..............the American people almost never get upset enough to get out in the streets and demand answers...............this was a time when they should have
 
That 3 hour episode along with others are streaming on PBS frontline's site.

You can watch the whole three hours online about Oswald's life..a very good show but why did Oswald just happen to get a job at the
School Book Depository a few weeks before JFK was murdered? And Jack Ruby shooting Oswald...and the President's brain tissue lost and his autopsy notes burned AND the Texas police which include the infamous Henry Wade (of Roe v Wade) took 0 notes when interviewing Oswald for 12 hours.........

This was a coup but we will never know by who or why..............the American people almost never get upset enough to get out in the streets and demand answers...............this was a time when they should have

GOOD POST.
 
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.

I agree it was likely a mob hit. And from what my uncle, a retired Michigan State Trooper who served the Detroit area, has told me about the mob, is that they seldom use multiple shooters, as they want as few people knowing about a hit as possible. And if the shooter is someone outside the mob, and even sometimes inside, they often kill the shooter to eliminate the possibility of them squealing or talking too much.
 

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
121
Guests online
1,586
Total visitors
1,707

Forum statistics

Threads
589,162
Messages
17,915,022
Members
227,745
Latest member
branditau.wareham72@gmail
Back
Top