"JFK single-gunman theory shot down by science"

[k-robjoe]

"It's possibly history's biggest conspiracy theory—one that over and over has begged the question: was there really only one gunman in the JFK assassination? Not according to science, says physicist and ballistics expert G. Paul Chambers in HEAD SHOT: THE SCIENCE BEHIND THE JFK ASSASSINATION

(...)

As the forty-seventh anniversary of JFK's assassination approaches on November 22, 2010, Chambers, a former research physicist in detonation and radiation sciences for the US government, uses the laws of physics and motion to prove compelling new conclusions about the course of events that forever changed the landscape of American leadership. He confirms:


* the presence of a second gunman in Dealey Plaza
* the locations of the assassins
* murder conspiracy without a doubt

The conclusions presented in HEAD SHOT: THE SCIENCE BEHIND THE JFK ASSASSINATION aim to correct "the bad science and misinformation that has been disseminated to the American public over the last forty-five years" says Chambers, who argues that the physics behind lone-gunmen theories is not only wrong, but impossible.

Chambers covers in detail the Warren Commission, challenges to the single-bullet theory, the importance of eyewitnesses, how science arrives at the truth, the medical and acoustic evidence, the physical principle of momentum, the Zapruder film, and convincing evidence for at least a second rifleman in Dealey Plaza."

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2010-10/pb-jst101210.php

[SDuderstadt]

1. Yeah, yeah, yeah...

Where's the entrance wound from the "second shooter", dude?

[k-robjoe]

3. In the right temple

I googled to see if the wording was OK, and came across this :

"New York Times, December 16, 1963.

The F.B.I. report said, "Kennedy was hit by two bullets, one where the right shoulder joins the neck and the other in the right temple."

http://www.jfkpage.com/

And from the same link :



"The alleged rear entrance wound (Parietal bone) from the Texas School Book Depository Building is higher than the autopsy report specified, which claims there is an entrance wound lower near the Occipital bone. A bullet entrance wound in the Occipital bone originating from the Book Depository would exit through Kennedy's face, and therefore is not a possible shooter location. While the alleged Parietal bone wound works for the Oswald Theory, the actual Occipital bone wound (indicated in the autopsy report) exiting the temple bone could not have originated from the Book Depository. Please see House Committee (HSCA) excerpt concerning autopsy discrepancy. (800K PDF)"

[SDuderstadt]

4. Convergence of evidence, dude...

Did the FBI conduct the autopsy? Hint: no. Where did the bullet fragments that hit the inside of the windshield come from? A bullet that hit JFK from the front?

Dude, this is what conspiracy theorists do. They comb through all the evidence and select the parts that appear to prove their case, while ignoring the parts that contradict it. This has been going on for 47 fucking years. Can we expect indictments soon?

[k-robjoe]

5. So what´s your comment on this?

From my post above ( # 3 ) :

"The alleged rear entrance wound (Parietal bone) from the Texas School Book Depository Building is higher than the autopsy report specified, which claims there is an entrance wound lower near the Occipital bone."

[SDuderstadt]

6. My comment is that...

the cratering of JFK's skull at the rearmost portion of the wound shows that the bullet hit from behind.

Dude, there's really nothing new here; this is just the same bullshit being rebunked. Enjoy your preoccupation and ask yourself this question. Why couldn't alternative theorists convince the THREE investigations that followed the Warren Commission?

[k-robjoe]

7. If there is an entry wound

where the purple(?) circle is



then .. well, people can judge for themselves.

And according to this link, this is what the autopsy concluded.

[SDuderstadt]

8. "According to the link"...

and that's where your problem starts. Did you bother to fact-check the link?

[k-robjoe]

9. Not yet

And right now I´ll be otherwise engaged for a while.

( I´ll just quote from the PDF they link to, but like I said, I´ll have to get back to this to check if it´s factual. )

"The autopsy report localizes and characterizes the posterior head wound as follows:
Situated in the posterior scalp approximately 2.5 centimeters laterally to the right and slightly above the external occipital protuberance is a lacerated wound measuring 15 x 16 millimeters. In the underlying bone is a corresponding wound through the skull which exhibits beveling of the margins of the bone then viewed from the inner aspect of the skull."

http://www.jfkpage.com/Occipital/Occipital%20Wound.pdf

[SDuderstadt]

10. Dude...

simple question: Why didn't you fact-check it BEFORE you posted it?

[k-robjoe]

11. No doubt

No doubt that would be a better way of going about it.

But better late than never. I googled for the quote in my post above, and found it.

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/jfkinfo/app9.htm

or here :

http://books.google.no/books?id=TpzGMAmH2LEC&pg=PA540&lpg=PA540&dq=Warren+Report+%22Missile+Wounds%22&source=bl&ots=iiw_xwUI-z&sig=WeWASFaUBHScLxiv7a3cAeKaLsc&hl=no&ei=7Uu3TJ7PE9CfOqyvkdgJ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=5&ved=0CC0Q6AEwBA#v=onepage&q&f=false

( Scroll down one page )

[SDuderstadt]

12. Simple question:

Do you understand what the word "posterior" means?

[k-robjoe]

13. My understanding of it

is that this is the posterior of the skull ( Scroll down for image ) :



"Photograph of the posterior view of a human skull on which the authopsy pathologists, Drs. Humes, Boswell and Finck, identified the approximate location of the entrance wound."

http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol7/html/HSCA_Vol7_0062b.htm

[SDuderstadt]

14. Now...

do you understand what the word "approximate" means?

[IScreamSundays]

15. oh wow!

and on and on and on. I am being careful as I don't want to be tombstoned. I have been warned. Thanks for that.

[SDuderstadt]

16. Does anyone have any idea what...

ISS is babbling about?

[k-robjoe]

17. In context

The "approximate" needs to be put into context :

"(PAGE 114) The panel .... sought to clarify this discrepancy by interviewing three pathologists, Drs. Humes, Boswell, and Finck, and the radiologist, Dr. Ebersole. Each was asked individually to localize the wound of entrance (...)
Each physician persisted in this localization, notwithstanding the apparent discrepancy between that localization and the wound characterized by the panel members as a typical entrance wound in the more superior "cowlick" area."

http://www.jfkpage.com/Occipital/Occipital%20Wound.pdf

[spooked911]

32. verified by Malcolm Kilduff

the fatal head shot entry was shown by Asst White House Press Secretary Kilduff, in Dallas Parkland Hospital Press Conference, where he points to a spot above his right eyebrow.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V73-unR1Rq4

[SDuderstadt]

33. Where'd the bullet go...

dude?

How do we know JFK wasn't killed with "mini-nukes" or a rudimentary model of a DEW?

[BeFree]

2. A great big cover-up

So you have to ask yourself: if they told the truth what would have happened?

If they came out with this: "We don't know who killed JFK" could the people have handled it?

Methinks the OCT is the most acceptable teat they could offer.
And it placates nicely, eh?

[defendandprotect]

27. Evidently, the night of the assassination many in Washington were discussing names of those

involved --

And given the nature of those who were appointed to the WC, certainly they

would have known! More so than anyone else -- other than LBJ, perhaps?

Bobby Kennedy evidently sent someone he could rely on "in" to find out who

was responsible for his brother's death and very quickly -- within 24 hours --

the answer came back that he couldn't get thru because it was

so violently protected -- and such a powerful coup.

Plus, evidently 100's of lawyers in DC very quickly lost their lives.

There was only one thing going to come out of the WC and that was Oswald.

[k-robjoe]

18. Review / Interview

Review of the book :

http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig11/cinque4.1.1.html

Interview with G. Paul Chambers :

http://archive.constantcontact.com/fs090/1101630309567/archive/1103780709152.html

( Scroll down for the interview. )

[Eddie Haskell]

19. The Men Who Killed Kennedy

I just watched this documentary. Within minutes of the assassination, the government's scenario of how things "went down" was scripted through media releases. LBJ did not want an investigation (sound familiar), but under intense pressure he appointed Allen Dulles to chair the commission. Dulles and his entire CIA staff had been forced out by Kennedy in 1961.

The Warren Commission refused to consider any evidence or eye-witness testimony that contradicted the script. There were over 50 eyewitnesses to the kill shot, none of their testimonies supported the Warren Commission's conclusions. In one instance, the commission had to choose between the testimony of a Dallas reporter and Jack Ruby's. They chose Ruby's.

[SDuderstadt]

20. Can we expect indictments soon?

Oh, wait...you guys have been making these goofy claims for 47 years, to no avail.

[Eddie Haskell]

21. I guess you're ignoring the HSCA report ...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_House_Select_Committee_on_Assassinations

Conclusions regarding the JFK assassination

The HSCA concluded in its 1979 report that:
Lee Harvey Oswald fired three shots at President John F. Kennedy. The second and third shots he fired struck the President. The third shot he fired killed the President.
Scientific acoustical evidence establishes a high probability that at least two gunmen fired at President John F. Kennedy. Other scientific evidence does not preclude the possibility of two gunmen firing at the President. Scientific evidence negates some specific conspiracy allegations.
The committee believes, on the basis of the evidence available to it, that President John F. Kennedy was probably assassinated as a result of a conspiracy. The committee was unable to identify the other gunmen or the extent of the conspiracy.
The committee believes, on the basis of the evidence available to it, that the Soviet Government was not involved in the assassination of President Kennedy.
The committee believes, on the basis of the evidence available to it, that the Cuban Government was not involved in the assassination of President Kennedy.
The committee believes, on the basis of the evidence available to it, that anti-Castro Cuban groups, as groups, were not involved in the assassination of President Kennedy, but that the available evidence does not preclude the possibility that individual members may have been involved.
The committee believes, on the basis of the evidence available to it, that the national syndicate of organized crime, as a group, was not involved in the assassination of President Kennedy, but that the available evidence does not preclude the possibility that individual members may have been involved.
The committee believes, on the basis of the evidence available to it, that the Secret Service, Federal Bureau of Investigation, and Central Intelligence Agency were not involved in the assassination of President Kennedy.
Agencies and departments of the U.S. Government performed with varying degrees of competency in the fulfilment of their duties. President John F. Kennedy did not receive adequate protection. A thorough and reliable investigation into the responsibility of Lee Harvey Oswald for the assassination was conducted. The investigation into the possibility of conspiracy in the assassination was inadequate. The conclusions of the investigations were arrived at in good faith, but presented in a fashion that was too definitive.
The Committee further concluded that it was probable that:
four shots were fired
the third shot came from a second assassin located on the grassy knoll, but missed. They concluded that it missed due to the lack of physical evidence of an actual bullet, of course this investigation took place almost sixteen years after the crime.
The HSCA agreed with the single bullet theory, but concluded that it occurred at a time point during the assassination that differed from any of the several time points the Warren Commission theorized it occurred.
The Department of Justice, FBI, CIA, and the Warren Commission were all criticized for deficient job performance in their subsequent investigations, deficient in revealing to the Warren Commission information available in 1964, and the Secret Service was called deficient in their protection of the President.

[SDuderstadt]

22. I guess you're ignoring...

the National Academy of Science, dude. In the meantime, the HSCA was 22 years ago. What have you JFK assassination conspiracists been doing in that period of time? Got any solid leads?

I love the way you guys downplay the part of the HSCA report that concludes Oswald killed JFK. Do you think you might find his "accomplice" while said accomplice is still alive? What is so hard about this?

[Eddie Haskell]

23. It's not about JFK ... it's about the next tragedy.

“There is implicit in all human tragedy a waste, a pointlessness. Tragedy unobserved
is even more pointless. But tragedy unremembered surely must rank with profound
sin.”
--Saul Pett, 1964

They also concluded it was a conspiracy.

[SDuderstadt]

24. WTF are you...

babbling about now?

I noticed you left the word "probably" out.

[Mortimer Ichabod]

25. Question

I was watching a JFK Documentary the other day that came with the movie JFK. In it, Walter Matthau states that Chief Justice Earl Warren said, "We're not going to know the truth for 75 years and it's better that we don't."

Can anyone confirm or find anything that proves he said this? A quick google search has turned up nada.

[defendandprotect]

29. Well, presume you mean from the JFK movie ... however,

while it's true records were to be kept sealed for 75 years -- til 2029 --

IF Warren actually said "better that we don't know now" -- and I have no info

on that now -- then I think we have to go back to what looks like intimidation

of Earl Warren by LBJ -- whether legitimately based on some past indiscretion

involving some known criminal, or actually based on something from his past.

However, it seems to be clear that many were told that it would be dangerous for

the public to know the truth ... i.e., that evidence pointed to Cuba and we

public would demand nuking of Cuba and then Russia would nuke us in return!!

A CIA psycnological run around -- and the CIA wrote the actual WC report!

So even if Warren said that -- hard to know which way he might have meant it.

That fearmongering re Cuba/Russia seemed to have been used quite a bit on quite

a number of people.

Meanwhile -- evidently we might get the records in 2017 -- if we don't get more

delays from presidents re FOIA stuff -- presidents like W --

http://www.maryferrell.org/wiki/index.php/Freeing_the_JFK_Files

If you scroll down to the final two paragraphs of the article -- you'll see across

from it info from the Tunnheim Panel that records to this effect --

Many declassified records still contain "redactions," blackouts which hide the name of an informant or a method of operation. While each such document contains a schedule whereby each redaction will be lifted, with all of them scheduled to be removed as of 2017, in reality the National Archives has not devoted the resources needed to reprocess the records. The CIA did reprocess 8000 documents in 2003 and removed many redactions, but the fate of most of the rest is uncertain.

but I can't for some reason copy the actual info as stated across from it.

[defendandprotect]

28. Exactly .... and there's an interview of Jean Hill by Arlen Specter which is frightening....

he's telling her he/they can turn her into the same kind of crazy

person they turned Margueritte Oswald into!

She wouldn't go to DC to testify because she was warned she'd be killed so

Specter interviewed her in Texas.

This is from Crossfire by Jim Marrs --

The FBI took me to Parkland Hosp, I had no idea what I was doing there.
They escorted me through a labyrinth of corridors and up to one of the top floors of
Parkland. I didn’t know where we were. They took me into this little room where
I met Arlen Spectrer. He talked to me for a few minutes, trying to act real friendly,
then this woman, a stenographer, came in and sat behind me. He had told me that this
interview would be confidential, then I looked around and this woman was taking notes.
I reminded him that the discussion was to be private and he told the woman to put down
her notebook, which she did. But when I looked around again she was writing.
I got mad and told Specter, "You lied to me. I want this over."
He asked me why I wouldn’t come to Washington, and I said, "Because I want to stay alive."
He asked why I would think that I was in danger and I replied, "Well, if they can kill the President, they can certainly get me!" He replied that they already had the man that did
it and I told him, "No, you don’t!" He kept trying to get me to change my story, particularly regarding the number of shots. He said I had been told how many shots there were and
I figured he was talking about what the Secret Service told me right after the assassination.
His inflection and attitude was that I knew what I was supposed to be saying, why wouldn’t
I just say it. I asked him, "Look, do you want the truth or just what you want me to say?"
He said he wanted the truth, so I said, "The truth is that I heard between four and six shots."
I told him, "I’m not going to lie for you."

So he starts talking off the record. He told me about my life, my family, and even mentioned
that my marriage was in trouble. I said, "What’s the point of interviewing me if you already know everything about me?" He got angrier and angrier and finally told me, "Look, we can make you look as crazy as Marguerite Oswald and everybody knows how crazy she is.
We could have you put in a mental institution if you don’t cooperate with us." I knew he was trying to intimidate me. I kept asking to see that woman’s notes, to see what she was putting down. I knew something was not right about this, because no one who is just taking a deposition
gets that involved and angry, they just take your answers. He finally gave me his word that
the interview would not be published unless I approved what was written. But they never
gave me the chance to read it or approve it. When I finally read my testimony as published
by the Warren Commission, I knew it was a fabrication from the first line. After that ordeal
at Parkland Hospital, they wrote that my deposition was taken at the U. S. attorney’s office
in the Post Office Building.


And these are some of my comments on that --

I’m sure that many know that many witnesses have stated that their testimony as it
appeared in the Warren Commission Report was altered – not what they had testified to
Additionally, many witnesses claim that there were attempts to intimidate them to change
their testimony - Sen. Yarborough, for one. Many witnesses were dead before they could
testify..
Just some background on the "Magic Bullet" – Specter didn’t invent that cover-up, but he
delivered it –
The wound in President Kennedy’s back was actually in his right shoulder which was
way below the neck wound. AND IT WAS AT A 45 DEGREE DOWNWARD ANGLE.
The neck wound had no exit – which was made clear at the autopsy - and doctors at
Parkland describe it as a wound of entry.
The wound in President Kennedy’s right/back shoulder had no exit – also made clear at
military autopsy.
Doctors at Parkland, nurses at Parkland – all personnel who had a view of the president’s
body describe a large EXIT wound in the right rear of his head – roughly the size of a fist.
　
Those who have changed America thru political violence over the past decades delivered
fascism and clearly intend to deliver a third world America as they harvest slave labor
all over the world.

[k-robjoe]

26. Gary Mack

Gary Mack surprises me. ( 3:50 out in the clip )

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TWqJ0guPdMc

[defendandprotect]

30. Didn't know Ventura had done this .... Yes, Gary Mack ....

seemed to have originally been fighting for truth like everyone else --

and then Oops! he wasn't --

so ... is this another turn around?


This isn't bad -- especially if some people would be more inclined to trust

Ventura -- ??

Interesting enough that I'll watch the rest of it -- thanks!

By the way, we have to keep asking the Tunnheim Panel what Oswald's employment/IRS

records looked like -- obviously the first thing they would have looked for.

But re Marina -- she may have taken some pictures, but obviously the one on Life's

cover is faked. Would Oswald have faked a photo of himself? As an an assignment,

perhaps? And where are the originals of the photos that Marina took?

The un-doctored ones? Can see this is still horrific for Marina -- she is very

much afraid for her children. Presumably lives under threat of harm to them.

Therefore she isn't really free to tell us what she may know.


Presume he has a TV show? When did this appear?


:)

[SDuderstadt]

31. "presumably lives under the threat of harm to them"

LOLOL...

The "children" would now be nearly in their 50's.

[k-robjoe]

34. Coast to Coast

G. Paul Chambers will be on Coast to Coast tonight ( Monday ) with some other guests.

"The second show, The JFK Assassination Special, airs on Monday night and features 4 different guests, each addressing a different aspect of the assassination.

Former FBI investigator Donald A. Adams believes he knows the true identity of the assassin. Craig Hulet will discuss the connection between the Secret Service and the assassination. Tim Miller has new information that proves there was a conspiracy, and G. Paul Chambers will discuss the science behind the physical evidence."

http://www.examiner.com/coast-to-coast-radio-in-national/coast-to-coast-am-kennedy-assassination-special

Apparently there was a conference this weekend, where he also gave a talk.

"November 20, Saturday

(...)

2:00 pm – Dr. G. Paul Chambers, PhD., Head Shot: The Science Behind the JFK Assassination."

http://politicalassassinations.com/2010/11/watch-the-copa-conference-online/

[SDuderstadt]

35. Gee...

just in time for the 47th anniversary.

Simple question: are you at all open to the possibility that Oswald killed JFK, as FOUR investigations have concluded?

[stopbush]

36. Hi. Just chiming in to offer moral support in your battle of logic v the JFK CTists.

I don't have the patience to deal with these losers anymore. They all sit in my kill file these days.

[k-robjoe]

37. Online

You can listen to the program at this site :

http://zfirelight.blogspot.com/

( Tuesday, November 23, 2010 )

G. Paul Chambers is on in the fourth segment.