JCC Half a century later there (still) was a conspiracy in the JFK assassination

I'm surprised that images of JFK from his autopsy are available for people to look at yet no images have ever been released of Bin Laden after he was killed. The reason we were given is that they were too horrific because they showed a guy who had been shot in the head, yet we have images from the 60s of a guy with half his head blown apart and that is apparently OK to look at?

 

The rationale for not releasing the pictures of Bin Laden isn't that they'd be too grisly to look at; it's that they would inflame the Muslim world and provide a singular image for the jihadist movement to coalesce around.

Also, I believe that the JFK autopsy pictures have never been "officially" released. The ones that are out there were leaked. The ones officially released by the government are renderings based on those pictures.

I skimmed through Oliver Stone's travesty last night. I disagree with Rogue1-and-a-half that the Donald Sutherland scene is the highlight of the film; to me it's the dinner table scene in the first half where the three strands--the dinner table itself, the depictions of Oswald, and the shadowy hand manipulating the photo--are so seamlessly weaved together. The conspiratorial tension is raised so perfectly as the scene goes on.

I changed my mind about the stupidest thing about the movie being the disparate "Oswald-Ferrie-Shaw"/military industrial complex theories being espoused simultaneously, though. Instead, it's the stunningly mendacious bit at the very end where the scrolling text notes, in a quasi-triumphal way, that the 1978 HSCA investigation concluded there was a conspiracy in the assassination. Yes. What isn't noted is that the HSCA also confirmed every single finding of consequence of the Warren Report, which the film just spent 180 minutes claiming was a national travesty.

 

That's one convenient possibility. The disposal of bin Laden's body at sea ties into this, but I've seen speculation that the reason there were no photographs released and the body chucked over the side of the ship was to dispose of evidence of wrongdoing. What wrongdoing? I've no evidence, but some speculation on that:

• Possibly bin Laden was shot in the back. But, you say, we know he was shot in the face. We know that how—from the photos they refuse to release? And even if the photos show that, wouldn’t you need an autopsy by an independent honest authority to be sure?
• If indeed he was shot in the face, it's possible the ammunition used was illegal at longstanding international law such that a photo would reveal it pretty easily. Such descriptions given of bin Laden's wounds have included narratives that his brains were hanging out his left eye socket and his left ear. That's consistent with explosive ammunition. If the SEALS did in fact use explosive ammo on bin Laden, then the US breached Declaration III of the Hague Convention 1899 and the Declaration of St. Petersburg 1868, which respectively banned bullets that easily flatten or expand in the body, and explosive projectiles of less than 400 grams in mass. Not a good look for the US to use stuff that's been verboten in warfare since around the time they thought grapeshot was a bad idea.

I've never really bought the "don't inflame the Muslim world" story for not releasing the photo. The jihadist Muslim world for better or worse is inflamed against the West and gets regularly re-inflamed anytime someone dares to do a sketch of the Prophet. bin Laden was not the Prophet, and if grisly ends like that which Ghaddafi came to demonstrate anything, it's that seeing a terrorist dead makes him a human rather than a martyr.

 

Everyone's forgetting the most important thing about all these wild and ridiculous theories: you have to finish them with HALF-LIFE 3 CONFIRMED.

 

All seriousness, I really am enjoying the discussion around JFK.



And I actually reckon that we should resume the chat on this one in the Senate thread about conspiracies; it's been kinda dead in there since I suggested we look at Oak Island and this is sure an interesting subject to pursue, not to mention Kiki's got some substantial stuff to say about it, which is always a good thing.

 

If we used illegal explosive ammunition, doesn't that mean that someone is manufacturing that ammunition here in the U.S.? Can that sort of thing really be hidden?

 

It doesn't have to be hidden. Manufacturing the bullets or selling them is not illegal under civilian or international law. John Hinckley Jr., in his assassination attempt on Reagan used "Devastator" bullets made by Bingham Limited, which were explosive bullets. Since then their use has been restricted by law, but not stopped. And note US law enforcement itself uses hollow-point bullets, which are not true explosive bullets but flatten-on-impact ammunition.

The illegality of explosive bullets is in their use at war: the nations of the world agreed not to use it in wartime because it causes disproportionate death, maiming and suffering in the way grapeshot did as opposed to regular cannonballs. bin Laden was always called a legitimate military target by the US anytime the issue of him being a civilian was raised in the war on terror. As it is, I'd bet you dollars to doughnuts that if anyone put in some sort of freedom of information request in respect of documentation regarding purchase or use of explosive ammunition by the US military, the request would come back classified on the basis of national security. US law enforcement gets away with using hollow points because it's not at war with anyone.

 

Gallup: 61% of Americans believe in JFK conspiracies

 

All right, back to it.

Need more evidence that
1. The bullet entered too low?
2. The gov't knew this?

Okay, here's the autopsy note from the chief pathologist...
. Oh myyyy, that's pretty far down the back and it's from the Navy autopsy.

But wait, there's more. Here's the jacket with bullet hole...


Well it's unanous where the bullet entered, whether we look at the autopsy, the jacket, the WC recreation or a no conspiracy website and/or TV special.

So, here's how the WC portrayed it to the men who would rule on the lone gunman theory...


IMO the intent of that graphic (official WC exhibit BTW) is obviously to deceive the viewer.

The jacket has a particularly amusing explanation from the lone gunman defense squad, it was bunched up because he was SA img at people! I guess his skin also bunched up above the Adam's Apple too.

 

Precisely. And just look up to see the horribly misleading graphic that was used to sway commission members. A deception that is still used to this day as proved by earlier pics I submitted from no conspiracy cooks and TV specials.

We can agree to disagree on the throat to armpit line but let me make sure I understand you. The official story on Oswald's 3 bullets is...
1st- misses the car entirely, bounces off a tree (hold on, let me stop laughing) and redirects to the opposite end of the plaza where it strikes a curb and a man's face. I'll showcase that later.
2nd- does the back/throat ziz zag and then continues on to Connally's armpit.
3rd- blasts Kennedy's head open.

 

Kiki-Gonn,

How do you explain the HSCA's independent experts ultimately supporting all of the Warren Commission's conclusions? You know, the people who underwent years and years of professional training in the relevant disciplines. Did the same shadowy people who conceived the cover-up in the first place kidnap all of the family members of the ballistics experts called to testify?

Also, a general point about the conspiracy silliness: It's rather amazing that 99% of the "evidence" cited for this idea is something that is printed in the Warren Report itself. Some cover-up.

 

Let me go in reverse order...
Absolutely correct- The WC's mandate was to convince the nation that there was only one shooter and no conspiracy of any kind.
Without question they failed miserably and the report itself gave rise to conspiracy theories.

They failed to convince the President, the Attorney General, three WC members, the Chief of Police in Dallas where the crime occurred, doctors and nurses who saw and worked on the bodies personally, the chief pathologist of JFK's autopsy- his assistant and commanding officer, numerous Dallas Police officers who personally investigated the crime, the closest eye witnesses to the car, the two surviving shooting victims, the man who handled Oswald's body himself, the Dallas funeral home employee who saw and handled JFK's body, etc.

What could account for such a colossal failure if it really was just a simple crime and they had all the evidence? I'd humbly submit that the theory being incorrect is the cause. They couldn't square the circle because they were trying to square a circle.
Perhaps this is why both mock trials of LHO held by the Bar Association failed to get a conviction? Because there is clearly something far more substantial than paranoid delusions explaining all of the above. That's my take.

Thanks for the question, doubt I'll move your position but the readers can decide if that is 'silliness.'

Next, the HSCA...

 

Joking aside, this is the most interesting thread that doesn't involve meltdowns that I've seen in quite a while.

 

I agree. It's kind of heartening to see a thread that's a genuine debate/discussion of such an interesting subject by people who have strong opinions right here in the JCC.

 

Now I'll recap the magic bullet so we can move on (HSCA next, sorry)

Every bullet fired by the WC from Oswald's gun came out more damaged than the magic bullet that supposedly caused 6 bullet holes in two men, going through two torso's, an arm and into a leg, breaking two bones in the process. That includes the two fired through cotton.

The magic bullet was not found in the car, in either body or in the operating room. It was found later on a different floor of the hospital.

All sources, WC/no conspiracy websites/autopsy agree the back wound was below the Adam's Apple. A bullet entering there from a sixth floor window would obviously travel downward, making an exit from the throat wound impossible (IMO).

In half a century, no one has proved a bullet can come out looking like the MB after all that. The closest I know of is the one Ramza cited which only hit 1 bone instead of two and didn't penetrate a leg (or equivalent) after.

The WC misled commission members with visuals that clearly do not match the actual bullet path.

This deception (or incompetence) is present in even this year's fancy computer generated 3D models of the shooting that are meant to convince you of the magic bullet theory.

The man who performed the autopsy (Dr James Hume) did not believe the magic bullet could have caused all that damage.

The WC had 3 experts examine the evidence, bullet, etc. and not one agreed with the theory.

The commission never believed the magic bullet did all that. They had a completely different theory UNTIL the wounded spectator and nicked curb came to light. At that point they had to remove 1 of Oswald's bullets from the equation in the car to account for the additional, out of car, damage. Forcing new evidence to fit your theory rather than reassessing your theory at its finest.

Edit: the Dallas doctors, the only people to see the throat wound because they obliterated it by performing a tracheostomy, described it as an entrance wound to the media. You can see this in several Dallas newspapers and national media outlets.
At first the FBI even explained this by reporting that Oswald managed that by shooting JFK in the throat as he was facing the rear to wave at people. Obviously that is a complete lie, Kennedy never turned around once. Yet one more cover up data point to add to the list.

 

Well maybe Magneto controlled the bullet's direction?

 

I'm sorry, and I'm not about to get into an argument about this, but anyone who thinks a bullet, upon entering a foreign body, can be expected to "obviously" do anything at all, knows absolutely nothing about the subject, and cannot possibly be taken seriously about anything thereunto pertaining.

Carry on.

 

Edit: That quote is a little out of context to me since they ended with the disclaimer IMO in the original post.

I should have been more clear, all lone gunman defenses to this day state that the bullet went through JFK in a straight, uninterrupted line at a downward angle (see pictures above).

I'm taking the experts at their word that this was a precondition for the MB theory since they all volunteer it. Since you cannot draw a straight downward line, and we can see the WC fudge that, the MB theory has a problem (one of several).

 

Slightly off subject, but has anyone seen the 2002 film Timequest with Victor Slezak and Caprice Benedetti? If so, is it any good?

 

Empire, if a bullet is fired downward from a sixth floor window, it stands to reason it would be going at an angle and could not go in a straight line.

I have no experience whatsoever with firearms, but even I can see that now.

Speaking of the neck bullet, does anyone have any idea exactly where it would have had to hit to exit at the centerline of his throat?

 

Has anyone here "played" JFK Reloaded?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JFK:_Reloaded

 

Sorry to whoever asked me how I can explain the HSCA. Sequentially I've got to get out of the world of ballistics as long as we've naturally dwelt so long on the magic bullet.

Pay attention here, this is IMO the most overlooked aspect of Oswald's supposed shooting feat... The first bullet.

Again, Im taking the many lone gunmen experts at their word here...
For the lone gunmen theory to be true, Oswald's 1st bullet had to miss the car entirely and end up at the opposite end of the plaza. Once there it nicked a concrete curb and cut a man (JT) across the face.

The reason it is so overlooked is probably because people arguing the LG theory would much rather ignore this little gem.
I had to dig to find some good visuals for you people.

Now, Oswald must take his first shot at the red dot (approximately of course). The bullet ends up striking two objects at the blue dot. JT was standing up against the triple underpass...


As far as I know no defender of the LG theory has even attempted to prove this is possible. That's after half a century.
My guess is because you could fire a million bullets and not get that to happen.

Additional fact: The FBI's test shots from that window indicate that Oswald would have had to take the shot when he couldn't see the target. The gov't sharpshooter made them move the sandbag away from the 1st shot X so he could SEE IT.

 

I watched an interesting show on the assassination recently, and it addressed your point above.

Apparently, one suggestion is, that there is a street sign that is behind the trees indicated by the red dot. The bullet hit the street sign, and ricocheted off this, landing at the blue dot and hitting Tague.

Don't get me wrong, I believe that there was some form of Conspiracy, however, the above can explain your query.

I believe from memory, the doco I recently watched that featured this was JFK: The Missing Bullet.

 

Pretty sure it's a lamppost and not a street sign.
The most successful and widely accepted LG book of all time says it was the tree.
A metal object at least seems more reasonable to me but look at that angle, he'd be shooting down at a steep angle. A deflection all the way to the blue dot seems problematic.
The best way to see this is from the far, far end of the plaza. I can't find a picture online. In a previous year I just took one myself. It's really noticeable.

The deflection off of something is the theory someone has to go with if they support the LGT.

Edit: Also, I noted this as one of the 13 points of damage Oswald's 3 bullets must account for.