I missed the part where you addressed Kennedy's head movement to the rear but after rewatching the Zapruder film I don't think that there could be any other explanation than Kennedy's being shot from the front-right.
You've no idea who was behind it but you know someone besides Oswald did it? How about evidence prior to reaching a conclusion?
Surely you understand that when a high speed projectile hits a fluid filled sphere, that sphere doesn't always move in the same direction of the bullet. Why are you resting your conclusions on something this dubious?
OK, you do make a compelling argument for the movement of Kennedy's head but not the spray that accompanies the sharp rearward motion of JFK's head. As far as what additional bullet fragments, spent casings etc we would have to rely on the truthfulness of the official version and that, I'm not willing to do.
I've witnessed people being shot while in the US military and shot a lot of old cantaloupes etc. None of the cantaloupes etc moved toward the point of impact. Admittedly, a cantaloupe on top of a cinderblock is not the same thing as a head connected to a body with a back brace so my mind remains open yet suspicious of the official version.
There s plenty of evidence to show Oswald could not have done it and there is plenty of evidence indicating american agencies did. Dig boy dig!
So you believe the projectile became so "fluid" that it caught a gust of wind and reverse direction! Wasn't Jackie baby wearing a big floppy, pink hat? It must have been made of cast iron steel and welded to her ears because that dad-blamed thang never even fluttered in the gale of wind that pushed the bullet back in the direction it came from! wow! Your logic spins circles around mine!
I've shot a pumpkin with a 50 BMG rifle that fell towards me. I know it's not the same, but I can't say a head moving back is for sure caused by a front shot.
For me there are 3 key pieces of evidence that prove beyond the shadow of any doubt the US government LIED (as usual). 1. The US government coverup for more than 5 decades. That it is a coverup is irrefutable. There is no other reason for this idiotic charade they call "national security", that's made for simpletons. They are protecting the criminal(s), same as 9/11. 2. The Zapruder video clearly showing JFK's head violently thrown backwards. That's a front shot, plain and simple. 3. Parts of JFK's head splattered all over trunk of the limo. 4. The Secret Service stand down before the limo turned the corner. The above is further supported by the history of US government LIES. There's much more but the above is more than enough. Whether Oswald was part of the conspiracy or just a patsy is a toss up that for me leans heavily toward the patsy side of the equation.
I don't need to quote what you'll never admit. Your posts defend the official JFK narrative and I haven't read one where you question any of it. I could be wrong though, maybe you do have a question but it sure isn't your MO.
If I said it, I'll admit it. Simple as that. Actually all I said was that Oswald was capable of doing it and called others out on questionable claims. Indeed you are wrong.
So there isn't a single person in the government who has anything to gain by exposing 50 year old corruption? That is a long shot. What are you doing to get records released and expose the coverup? By a bullet or fluid jetting out of the front of his head? What makes you an expert on fluid dynamics? Head shots can be messy no matter where the bullet comes from. Tell us more about this. What was the usual secret service manning during a limo drive through the city in 1963?
In your #4, "The Secret Service stand down before the limo turned the corner" Do you mean that the Secret Service Agents crouched as if anticipating Oswald's shots? In other words, do you feel that the Secret Service Agents knew what was coming? Yes, I'm well aware that the US Government, like all governments, lies to its citizens for various reasons because I'm old enough to have lived to see many of them exposed.
No there is not evidence at all to show he could not have done it nor is there any evidence indicating anyone else. It is not on me to dig the burden is on you to demonstrate such evidence.
I can imagine a part of the pumpkin falling forward but not the whole thing. Almost everything I've shot with a high powered rifle has moved away-"rearward" from the point of impact. I'm still strongly inclined to believe that Kennedy was shot from the front as well. Is there any knowledge as to what type of ammunition Oswald used?
Yes, I read it & responded. As I wrote earlier I still feel strongly that JFK was shot from the front as well as the back. It's a pretty grisly image.
It is very refutable as you have no evidence of a coverup and you have no expertise so your word is not good enough. That which can be claimed without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. His head did go back and to the left but only after going slightly forward and the movement backwards does not prove a frontal shot. His backwards movement is not evidence of a shot from any single direction. Such claims as yours that it proves a frontal shot merely comes from watching too much TV where people always jerk backwards when shot from the front. In reality people move and react unpredictably when shot. Especially when shot in the head and the brain is damaged. Yes parts of his head splattered on the trunk, other parts splattered on the windshield which was taken into evidence. There was also splatter on the dashboard and on Jackie and on the other occupants of the limo. The point is that head wounds typically do explode unpredictably and the mess ends up everywhere. So once again it is not evidence of a frontal shot. The secret service did not stand down at all that myth was long since debunked. That claim stems from a video of confused agent who was ordered off the limo at the airport and NOT just before turning the corner. It was not a stand down at all it was merely one agent who ended up where he was not supposed to be and ordered to get back where he belongs. There is simply no evidence for your claims
Ok I get that you feel that way and i respect that you simply call it a feeling but there is simply no evidence. One thing you mentioned was that you think it is suspect because the government handled the evidence but please explain why that would be suspicious? BTW you also mentioned the splatter but what many seem to forget is that the brain matter and blood and skull fragments splattered everywhere to the front, rear, and sides so how would that indicate a shot from the front or any other direction? Head shots are very often explosive that way and the head tissue ends up everywhere in a huge mess.
While it does appear that way and, having been to Dealey Plaza and seen that the Grassy Knoll was the perfect position for a sniper, I can't see how something like this can be covered up by so many people. Everything eventually leaks. So what would have compelled 10 Presidential administrations, hundreds of elected Congressmen and thousands of Federal employees to cover this up for 55 years?
Yes in fact they mention it here. BTW you may notice that this recreation was very accurate and they were in fact easily able to match Oswald's performance. Getting back to a post about Roberts and Hathcock I believe that yes Roberts exaggerated or even lied about some details as the USMC sniper school would simply not have recreated the shooting the way he claims. It was not within the scope of their mission to do so and would have cost money which they did not have to spend on such efforts. Their mission after all was to train future USMC snipers.
The grassy knoll was one of the worst positions for a sniper. The target was at the wrong angle crossing from upper left to lower right in a shooters field of view which would have required a very tricky method of leading the target. Sure there are some great shooters who could have pulled it off but you have to put yourself in their position. If you are being paid to shoot the president you want to eliminate as much as possible from going wrong and the difficulty of such a shot would be something to avoid if a better position could be found with a better angle and the Sniper nest in the book depository was a far superior position with a better angle on the target with little difficulty in hitting the target even as it was moving. As we have already discussed anyone shooting from Oswald's position would not have had to lead the target at all but merely to aim center mass. The real problem however was cover and concealment. The grassy knoll was fairly wide open with only a few trees and bushes and a fence to hie behind. And of course there were hundreds of witnesses including several witnesses on the SAME side of the fence that a shooter would have had to shoot over. One of them was Lee Bower who was looking right at the spot where a sniper would have fired from on the knoll and he saw NOTHING until after the shooting. Also the fence which is still there averaged 5 and half feet across the top. Any shooter would know that you need to get your shoulders ABOVE an obstacle to aim properly. This means the shooter would either have to be a very tall guy over 6 feet 4 inches of he would have to be standing on a platform wide enough for him to spread his legs and get a proper standing position. Sure both scenarios are possible but would have made the shooter stand out in an extremely conspicuous manner. By contrast the Texas School book depository was warehouse and what is typically found in where houses? Boxes! What can you do with boxes? Move them and construct a wall which you can hide behind. Which means camoflage, and also construct a stable firing platform. Thus from Oswald's position you get better accuracy from an easy to shoot from position and a far greater chance of shooting without being immediately noticed. The whole legend of the grasy knoll is nothing more than a myth.
No one said it reversed directions nor did it have to. As already demonstrated the bullet was fired from above and behind and his back and to the left movement was not caused by the bulelt impact by other natural forces. You are not employing logic at all but merely experienced gained from hollywood and you tube clips.
