Merged: bullet hole in the windshield of JFK's limo/ You might be...

[roundhead]

TIA

[volatile]

A bullet went through the windshield.

See - it's not hard.

[roundhead]

Originally Posted by volatile

A bullet went through the windshield.

See - it's not hard.

How is that bullet accounted for in the official story?

[SmartyPants]

It's not a bullet hole. It's a crack caused by bullet fragments from behind.

[CurtC]

SmartyPants nailed it - the crack was described by the expert who examined it as a crack, not a hole, with bits of lead stuck to the glass on the rear side of the glass. Almost like it got hit from behind with a bullet fragment or something! Wonder how that could have happened!

[roundhead]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vClwuJ0yuWM

[TK0001]

Originally Posted by CurtC

SmartyPants nailed it - the crack was described by the expert who examined it as a crack, not a hole, with bits of lead stuck to the glass on the rear side of the glass. Almost like it got hit from behind with a bullet fragment or something! Wonder how that could have happened!

Looks about right.

[TK0001]

Originally Posted by roundhead

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vClwuJ0yuWM

How could anyone be able to tell by looking at an actual bullet hole in a windshield, from which direction the bullet was fired?

[roundhead]

Originally Posted by TK0001

How could anyone be able to tell by looking at an actual bullet hole in a windshield, from which direction the bullet was fired?

The fact that its there, no matter the direction, makes the official story false

[kookbreaker]

Originally Posted by roundhead

The fact that its there, no matter the direction, makes the official story false

Even if it was made by a bullet fragment?

[TK0001]

Originally Posted by roundhead

The fact that its there, no matter the direction, makes the official story false

Of course, only if you actually believe it's a bullet hole and not a crack.

The crack seems pretty high on the windshield, as well. Have you figured out where a shooter would have to be standing/flying/levitating in order to make that "hole" with a bullet and hit Kennedy in the upper left portion of his head?

[madurobob]

Originally Posted by roundhead

The fact that its there, no matter the direction, makes the official story false

Well played. Ignore the obvious explanation, rail about "the official story".

Will you please offer an explanation that makes MORE sense?

[jhunter1163]

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/limo.htm

No need to go anywhere other than McAdams' site for any JFK stuff.

[Holler Hoojer]

Was it checked for traces of thermite?

[Praktik]

Originally Posted by Holler Hoojer

Was it checked for traces of thermite?

If not I demand a new, open, and transparent investigation!!

[MarkCorrigan]

Originally Posted by Holler Hoojer

Was it checked for traces of thermite?

Nominated.

[Cl1mh4224rd]

And, once again, a conspiracy theorists proves that he's merely destructive, not constructive. It doesn't matter how this bit of "evidence" can be used to build a more complete understanding of the event, only that it can be used to destroy the existing understanding.

[SmartyPants]

McAdams's site is incredibly good. If you have the time and patience, you might also want to check out Vince Bugliosi's book, Reclaiming History. As far as I'm concerned, his credibility and research are impeccable.

One thing I've never understood is hiring a shooter, a shooter to kill the president, no less, who can't hit the broad side of barn. Have you been to Dealy Plaza? I have. The grassy knoll can't be much more than 40 yards away from where the president was sitting. I'm not an experienced gunman, but a couple hours of Duck Hunt would prepare me enough to at least hit a body. Did you notice that crack, not hole, is closer to the driver's side? Were they aiming for Jackie, too, or the driver (not that they'd need to hit the driver since the limo was essentially a stationary target)? Have you noticed that all the blood, brain, skull fragments and bullet fragments were all found to the front of the president's body as would be consistent with a bullet coming from the rear?

It's not even a close call. Those bullets came from the rear.

ETA: 2nd paragraph addressed to roundhead

[jhunter1163]

I've never been to Dealey Plaza, but I've seen pictures of the view Oswald had. I'm far from a marksman, but I could make that shot two out of three tries. Nothing extraordinary about the shot at all.

[SmartyPants]

Originally Posted by roundhead

The fact that its there, no matter the direction, makes the official story false

I'm hesitant about calling this woman a liar, but we don't how far away she was from the limo. She may have mistakenly thought it was a hole, depending on her vision and distance. In any case, all the photos and examinations of the window prove her assertion wrong anyway.

What I didn't like was the subtext she provided: That "a security officer of some type" noticed her viewing the limo, then drove it away to prevent the word from getting out. I guess he was in on it. Although last time I checked, law enforcement doesn't want anyone near a crime scene.

[Cl1mh4224rd]

Originally Posted by SmartyPants

Did you notice that crack, not hole, is closer to the driver's side? Were they aiming for Jackie, too, or the driver (not that they'd need to hit the driver since the limo was essentially a stationary target)? Have you noticed that all the blood, brain, skull fragments and bullet fragments were all found to the front of the president's body as would be consistent with a bullet coming from the rear?

It just proves that the shooter was actually in the trunk of the limo.

[mark4mark]

The United States House of Representatives Select Committee on Assassinations determined there probably was a second gunman so this "evidence" you cite carries no relevance and actually verifies the "official story."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/House_S...al_conclusions

[TokenMac]

Originally Posted by TK0001

http://home.comcast.net/~the-puzzle-palace/CE350.gif

Looks about right.

At that angle the shooter would have to be on the bridge over I-35 on ramp.


and it would be pretty eazy to spot some one up there.

[dtugg]

Originally Posted by mark4mark

The United States House of Representatives Select Committee on Assassinations determined there probably was a second gunman so this "evidence" you cite carries no relevance and actually verifies the "official story."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/House_S...al_conclusions

Their conclusion was based soley on the analysis of a single audio recording. It has since been discredited. Did you read the whole article or just the parts that you want to believe?

[mark4mark]

Originally Posted by dtugg

Their conclusion was based soley on the analysis of a single audio recording. It has since been discredited. Did you read the whole article or just the parts that you want to believe?

That's funny, the article continued to say:
In 2001, this criticism of the Committee's acoustic evidence was rebutted in a Science and Justice article written by D.B. Thomas, a government scientist and JFK assassination researcher. He concluded the HSCA finding of a second shooter was correct and that the NAS panel's study was flawed. Thomas surmises that the Dictaphone needle jumped and created an overdub on Channel One."

So, Did you read the whole article or just the parts that you want to believe?

I don't believe in CT's - not that I owe somebody so quick to jump off at the hip as yourself anything remotely resembling an explanation.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp...nguage=printer

Does every attempt of yours to erudiate fail so miserably?

[Crungy]

Originally Posted by mark4mark

That's funny, the article continued to say:
In 2001, this criticism of the Committee's acoustic evidence was rebutted in a Science and Justice article written by D.B. Thomas, a government scientist and JFK assassination researcher. He concluded the HSCA finding of a second shooter was correct and that the NAS panel's study was flawed. Thomas surmises that the Dictaphone needle jumped and created an overdub on Channel One."

So, Did you read the whole article or just the parts that you want to believe?

I don't believe in CT's - not that I owe somebody so quick to jump off at the hip as yourself anything remotely resembling an explanation.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp...nguage=printer

Does every attempt of yours to erudiate fail so miserably?

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/odell/

So, Did you read the whole article or just the parts that you want to believe?

Does every attempt of yours to erudiate fail so miserably...

[applecorped]

[Hamradioguy]

Oh here we go again. A cracked windshield becomes a "bullet hole", and mystery shooters from every conceivable angle are everywhere.

Well folks, I HAVE been to Dealey Plaza. I've stood where Zapruder stood, wandered the so called "grassy knoll" (which isn't much of a knoll), inspected the fence behind which one or more shooters supposedly stood (No more than a few feet from Zapruder's location- how could he have missed muzzle blasts and bullets whizzing past his head?). I've looked at the storm drains in which other shooters were supposed to have hidden (Too small for even a midget), eyeballed the railroad overpass (from which other shooters were supposed to have been positioned), and visited Oswald's perch in the TSBD. As jhunter1163 says, "Nothing extraordinary about that shot at all".

I don't know how anyone could be a fence sitter after reading books by Posner, Jim Moore, and Bugliosi. But for anyone who might be, go to Dealey Plaza. It's a VERY small area. Try to figure out how all these mystery gunmen managed to stay hidden. And see if you can resist looking up at the 6th floor of the TSBD (You can't- everyone does this) and realizing just how easy a shot Oswald had.

[mark4mark]

Originally Posted by Crungy

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/odell/

So, Did you read the whole article or just the parts that you want to believe?

Does every attempt of yours to erudiate fail so miserably...

Yes I quickly browsed it and the conclusions and agree with them.

However, the original article I cited-which eventually prompted your "intervention"-does not mention what you linked, rendering dtuggs asking me "Did you read the whole article or just the parts that you want to believe?" a completely attack-dog move, and his disdain was unfounded and uncalled for, ergo I responded in kind.

Sorry to take the wind from your sails, but I agree with your facts, and thank you for them even with the attached (and imaginary) bravado you threw in for free...

[Crungy]

Originally Posted by mark4mark

Yes I quickly browsed it and the conclusions and agree with them.

However, the original article I cited-which eventually prompted your "intervention"-does not mention what you linked, rendering dtuggs asking me "Did you read the whole article or just the parts that you want to believe?" a completely attack-dog move, and his disdain was unfounded and uncalled for, ergo I responded in kind.

Sorry to take the wind from your sails, but I agree with your facts, and thank you for them even with the attached (and imaginary) bravado you threw in for free...

\m/

I'm surprised that that Wiki hasn't been updated to include the O'Dell's refutation.

By accident I once stumbled upon Steve Barber in a prog rock forum (yeah I admit liking some prog quasi classical 20 minute opuses). He's a huge Carl Palmer fan, but also a hard core Christian right dude, which lead to some uncomfortable conversations....

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/barber.htm

I still can't figure out which is sillier, JFK or 9/11 crackpot theories?

[mark4mark]

Originally Posted by Crungy

\m/



I still can't figure out which is sillier, JFK or 9/11 crackpot theories?

Since the 9/11 "theories" insult so many more people, they are far more pernicious IMO.

[Crungy]

Originally Posted by mark4mark

Since the 9/11 "theories" insult so many more people, they are far more pernicious IMO.

True if that's your main quack qualifier. I was reminiscing about all of the wacky and zany characters that the JFK "research" community has. Mark Lane, Jim Hoffman, Fletcher Prouty, Robert Groden, David Lifton, etc. It's been almost two decades since I immersed myself in that nuttiness, but I'd still argue that JFK nuts could still hold their own against 9/11 nuts. In the post 9/11 world people highly underrate the depths of insanity that JFK nutters are able to achieve. Don't ever underestimate a JFK nutter, they'll surprise you!

[JohnG]

Originally Posted by mark4mark

Does every attempt of yours to erudiate fail so miserably?

Erudiate?

[mark4mark]

Originally Posted by JohnG

Erudiate?

To instruct; to educate; to teach.

Silly wabbit...

[madurobob]

Originally Posted by JohnG

Erudiate?

That's poseur for 'splain

[mark4mark]

Originally Posted by Crungy

True if that's your main quack qualifier. I was reminiscing about all of the wacky and zany characters that the JFK "research" community has. Mark Lane, Jim Hoffman, Fletcher Prouty, Robert Groden, David Lifton, etc. It's been almost two decades since I immersed myself in that nuttiness, but I'd still argue that JFK nuts could still hold their own against 9/11 nuts. In the post 9/11 world people highly underrate the depths of insanity that JFK nutters are able to achieve. Don't ever underestimate a JFK nutter, they'll surprise you!

Ah yes, I see. It is inherently easier to join the ranks of the 911 woo-tang given the more prevalent non-evidence-based-conjecture-potential this complex event seemingly affords, but, by virtue of that, I do see why an absolutely surprising JFK quackism could surpass that of a twoofer.

So I see your point.

[JohnG]

The word does not appear in my Webster's Unabridged Dictionary. It appears I need to sue Webster's for false advertising. On the plus side, though I learned a new word.

[CurtC]

Originally Posted by TokenMac

At that angle the shooter would have to be on the bridge over I-35 on ramp.

Which, by the way, is a railroad bridge and not a bridge for cars, making people on it even more conspicuous.

[SmartyPants]

Originally Posted by Crungy

\m/

I'm surprised that that Wiki hasn't been updated to include the O'Dell's refutation.

By accident I once stumbled upon Steve Barber in a prog rock forum (yeah I admit liking some prog quasi classical 20 minute opuses). He's a huge Carl Palmer fan, but also a hard core Christian right dude, which lead to some uncomfortable conversations....

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/barber.htm

I still can't figure out which is sillier, JFK or 9/11 crackpot theories?

King Crimson is all kinds of awesome.

Anyway, in terms of sheer creativity and entertaining storylines, I think JFK wins hands down. I often grow tiresome of the 9/11 stuff, but I rarely get bored with JFK theories.

Of course, this is just personal preference. Interestingly enough, 9/11 is what got me posting here in the first place.

Oh yeah, just to stay on topic, those three bullets came from the rear.

[SmartyPants]

Originally Posted by Crungy

True if that's your main quack qualifier. I was reminiscing about all of the wacky and zany characters that the JFK "research" community has. Mark Lane, Jim Hoffman, Fletcher Prouty, Robert Groden, David Lifton, etc. It's been almost two decades since I immersed myself in that nuttiness, but I'd still argue that JFK nuts could still hold their own against 9/11 nuts. In the post 9/11 world people highly underrate the depths of insanity that JFK nutters are able to achieve. Don't ever underestimate a JFK nutter, they'll surprise you!

That's so true. Do you think anyone's going to remember Dylan Avery 10 years from now? The guys you mentioned have been well known in conspiracy circles for longer than I've been alive, in part because of their personalities.